Oral Answers to Questions

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Grammar Schools

Teddy Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many grammar schools exist in England and Wales; and what the number was a year ago.

Stephen Ladyman: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has for reviewing standards in LEA areas with selective secondary education systems.

Charles Clarke: There are 164 maintained grammar schools in England—the same number as one year ago. Wales has none.We continue to look at ways to support an increase in standards in schools in all local education authorities. That is an important matter for local education authorities to consider in their own local circumstances, and reach conclusions on how standards can best be improved. The House may be interested to know that a couple of months ago I asked Ofsted to send me a paper on the educational standards in the local education authority of Kent. I am considering that paper now.

Teddy Taylor: Is the Secretary of State aware that whereas the grammar schools felt more secure than for many years as a result of the policy initiatives of his predecessor, they are just a little worried that he might not be quite so positive about the matter? Before he contemplates changes, would he at least accept that grammar schools provide a unique opportunity for able children from working-class homes? Will he pay a visit to Southend on Sea, where our four grammar schools were in the top 100 achievers in the whole of England and Wales in the A-level results, and where, despite this, we find that the other schools performed extremely well?

Charles Clarke: I know that this has been a matter of concern to the hon. Gentleman for some time. The assurance that I can give him is that my fundamental focus, and that of the Government, is on pursuing the best possible educational standards in every part of the country for every pupil in every way that they operate. That is the approach that we will follow. Grammar schools can be confident that there will be no ideological attack from me or my party on these matters. They can also be confident that we will look carefully at the educational standards for the whole population in each of the areas that they serve.

Stephen Ladyman: I was extremely encouraged, both by my right hon. Friend's answer today and by his comments to the Select Committee. Does he agree that we must judge the matter on the facts? The facts as gathered by people such as Professor Jesson are that children in comprehensive schools do significantly better than their cohorts in grammar schools, and that in areas such as Kent, which is exclusively selective, we have a far higher proportion of failing schools than we should have. Is it not right that if we are to drive up standards, we must drive out selection?

Charles Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend that the issue is standards and an assessment of standards based on the facts. As my hon. Friend suggests, I have had an opportunity to examine the research commissioned by him from Professor Jesson. I was interested that it stated that grammar schools in Kent and Medway do less well and are performing at lower levels than other grammar schools in the country, which is in itself an interesting point. I was interested, too, that the last comparison made by my Department between the results of grammar and comprehensive schools in 1999 showed that 100 per cent. of pupils in the top 25 per cent. of comprehensive schools ability range achieved five or more A* to C grades at GCSE, compared with 96.4 per cent. achieving that at grammar schools. The fundamental point that I want to make, and which I sought to make before the Select Committee, is that the judgment must be based on educational standards for everybody, and it must be based on the facts and the factual assessment of those standards.

Peter Tapsell: Who was it who coined the phrase Xsink schools" and in what context?

Charles Clarke: I have no idea. I remember the phrase from the period in office of the Government of which the hon. Gentleman was a respected supporter. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman shouts XAlastair Campbell" across the Chamber. I am open to correction by the hon. Gentleman at all times, but I am pretty sure that Mr. Campbell never used the phrase Xsink schools", and that the phrase was generated during the period of the Government of which the hon. Gentleman was a supporter.

Phyllis Starkey: Is my right hon. Friend aware of one of the problems of the selective system that has been highlighted by the heads of the 21 secondary modern schools in Buckinghamshire—notably, the differential funding, which means that they are in deficit, while the grammar schools have a #2 million surplus? Is he concerned about the effect that that is having on the standard of education provided for disadvantaged children, who are over-represented in those schools, particularly ethnic minority pupils?

Charles Clarke: I am aware that there are issues of funding between schools. That is principally a matter for the local education authority concerned, but I return to the point that I made to my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman): in Buckinghamshire, as in Kent, the judgment must be made on the basis of educational standards for all pupils in the county, and on the basis of factual assessments of that, during which comparisons of the type that my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) makes are worthy of consideration.

Graham Brady: Does the Secretary of State accept that Labour Members frequently seem to be stuck in a time warp when they start to speak about academic selection? Whatever the failings of secondary moderns in the 1950s and 1960s, today's secondary modern high schools are achieving results only slightly below those of all-ability comprehensives. In English and maths, they are better than a third of comprehensive schools. At GCSE, they are better than a quarter of comprehensive schools. His own Department has designated 11 secondary moderns as beacon schools and 36 as specialist schools. Is it not time that Ministers joined us in celebrating the achievements of secondary moderns and grammar schools instead of knocking them?

Charles Clarke: I am very happy to join the hon. Gentleman in celebrating the genuine educational achievement of schools of all types. There are outstanding secondary modern schools, grammar schools, comprehensive schools and private schools. In each of those categories, however, there are also schools that are less than outstanding and which need serious work. That is why I focus, as will my Government throughout, on the issue of standards for everybody—[Interruption.] Lèse majesté is a failing of which I am, I hope, not often guilty, Mr. Speaker, but I am on this occasion and I apologise to you for it. The Government whom I am proud to serve—[Laughter.] I believe that it is important to restore the concept of service following the approach taken by the previous Government on these matters. The Government whom I serve will focus on educational standards in all schools, celebrate high-quality schools of all types and seek to raise the standards of lower-performing schools of all types. That will be our approach throughout. We will not take the sort of ideological, backward-looking approach that characterises the Conservative party.

Tuition Fees

Anne Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the effect of up-front tuition fees on access to higher education.

Charles Clarke: Since means-tested contributions to tuition fees were introduced in 1998, numbers in higher education have increased and there has been no fall in the proportion of those entering it from the bottom three social classes. We will shortly publish our review of higher education, which I can assure my hon. Friend will reflect our continued commitment to widening access. I can confirm that, as the Prime Minister has already told the House, there will be no massive increase in up-front tuition fees.

Anne Campbell: I am very pleased with that reply, but will my right hon. Friend also assess in the review process the effect of differential tuition fees on access, even if they are paid back as deferred loans or a graduate tax, as that is a source of worry to me?

Charles Clarke: I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that she seeks. We are considering the matter extremely carefully. I repeat what I said a moment ago: our commitment to access will be a central aspect of the review, which I hope to announce shortly.

Tim Boswell: Is it not now high time for the Secretary of State to acknowledge the clear implications of a written answer given to me only on Tuesday this week by the Minister for Lifelong Learning and Higher Education? It showed a doubling in the percentage of participation by students from unskilled families in the six Conservative years from 1991 to 1997, but that that process came completely to a stop after the imposition of tuition fees by the Labour Government. Does he not understand that his arbitrary 50 per cent. target for total participation by young people in higher education is logically and practically a totally different matter from widening opportunity for all those who are qualified and suitable to attend our universities? He needs rigorously to keep those issues apart.

Charles Clarke: It disappoints me, but I have to agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman said. Throughout the important discussion on these matters, I have distinguished between the very important issue of the proportion of the age group that goes into higher education, which is a very significant consideration and is now about 43 per cent. of the population, and the balance in that intake of people from different social classes. Those are different questions and both are very important. On the first, which he raised first, I believe that the 50 per cent. target is very important indeed. Looking at our competitor countries, we see that it is exceptionally important that people are educated to such a level. It is also important, however, carefully to consider the appropriate qualifications and degrees to be offered to the 50 per cent. who are coming through. That is what my review will do.
	On the second question, the difference between the chances of access to higher education of the higher and lower social classes is a public disgrace. The previous Conservative Government, in which the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) was a Minister, must bear responsibility for that. However, I shall be frank and admit that our Government must bear responsibility for our period in office. When I make my statement on those matters, I shall present measures to tackle them.

Paul Farrelly: What disadvantages does my right hon. Friend personally perceive in allowing different universities to charge students different top-up or tuition fees?

Charles Clarke: There are advantages and disadvantages to that policy, as with other policies. If my hon. Friend wants me to list the disadvantages, the first is the overall amount of money and the impact on access about which my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) asked. The second is the courses that would attract higher fees in the case of differential fees, and the implications for more expensive and cheaper courses.
	However, there are also important advantages. They include universities' ability to raise more resources, of which they are desperately short, and to develop a better contractual relationship with people who are coming to them. Major questions about the quality of teaching for many university students need to be raised.
	There are therefore great advantages and disadvantages. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly) has been an active participant in the debate, and I hope that he, like me, will examine both the pros and cons.

Adam Price: Given that the Secretary of State for Wales and the Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning in the National Assembly have condemned top-up fees as socially divisive, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that he will not introduce any changes to the system of financing higher education in Wales without the consent of the National Assembly?

Charles Clarke: I will not confirm that because a discussion is taking place between all my colleagues, including the Secretary of State for Wales and colleagues in the National Assembly for Wales. I shall not say to any participant in the debate, whether a political party such as the hon. Gentleman's or an organisation, that there is a veto on change. I shall try to achieve consent and agreement about positive changes to the university and higher education system in both Wales and England.

Barry Sheerman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we have made substantial progress in moving towards the 50 per cent. target for participation of those under 30? There have been tremendous changes, and that is a great success. We must now switch to ensuring a much more socially diverse entry.
	Does my right hon. Friend also agree that we should not lose sight of the fact that we want high quality higher education that delivers for all those who have the potential to benefit? We must not forget that that must be financed from somewhere.

Charles Clarke: My hon. Friend has put his finger on the point. First, we must tackle standards. Secondly, the quality and nature of the degree qualifications are important to the student, employers and the future. Different issues arise if we envisage 50 per cent. as opposed to 15 per cent. or 20 per cent. of the population entering higher education. They must be properly tackled. Thirdly, those who claim that we should simply forget about expanding higher education are wrong. I believe that we must do that. Those who claim that we should expand higher education but ensure that it properly serves our society and economy are right. I hope that we will follow that approach.

Teacher Shortages (Essex)

Bob Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what action he will take to help reduce teacher shortages in Essex.

Stephen Twigg: Essex has benefited from the full range of Government measures that were introduced since 1997 to improve teacher recruitment. They include training bursaries, golden hellos and extra pay flexibilities. That has helped full-time equivalent teacher numbers to increase throughout Essex from 12,580 in 1997 to 13,650 in 2002. From 2003, Essex schools' budgets will rise through the local government settlement, and there will be further increases in the following two years.

Bob Spink: Does not the Under-Secretary understand that the Government have increased bureaucracy and damaged discipline, thus demoralising teachers not only in Essex but throughout the country? Does he realise that several schools in my constituency have massive teacher vacancies? Will he consider extending London weighting to my constituency so that teachers there can be paid at least the same as those in adjacent constituencies?

Stephen Twigg: I think that the hon. Gentleman is making a plea for more money from the Government for education at a time when the local government settlement has given a 5.7 per cent. increase to the local authority in Essex, within which we are recommending a 6.9 per cent. increase, which is an excellent and healthy increase for schools in Essex. I do not underestimate the difficulties of recruitment and retention in Essex or elsewhere, but the matter is being addressed in a systematic way not only by the Government but by the local education authority. I would encourage the hon. Gentleman to give his support to these positive measures to recruit additional teachers in Essex and elsewhere.

Bob Russell: May I invite the Minister to have a friendly word with his colleagues in the Home Office about the Criminal Records Bureau, because that is one area in which the Government could help to reduce teacher shortages in Essex. As recently as last Friday, the Colchester Evening Gazette reported that
	XMore than 1,500 teachers, lunch-time assistants, classroom helpers and . . . caretakers" could not start work because the Criminal Records Bureau had not yet checked their assessments. Of those, nearly 400 were teachers. The Government could resolve much of the teacher shortage in Essex in one fell swoop by getting the Criminal Records Bureau to work.

Stephen Twigg: I have a lot of sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's point. I will certainly use what opportunities I have to talk to the Criminal Records Bureau and to Home Office colleagues about the situation. As regards the recruitment of teachers, all that is required is that the List 99 requirements are fulfilled, so I will check that that is happening in Essex. I am sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman's argument, because we want to ensure that schools are able to recruit all staff, not only teachers, and I will look into the matter for him.

Damian Green: The Minister has heard the reasons for staff shortages in Essex. Those teachers will have contributed to the survey of 70,000 teachers earlier this week which found that one third of our teachers planned to resign or retire within the next five years. How much responsibility does he think that Government policy bears for this crisis in our schools?

Stephen Twigg: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has actually read the survey concerned. Yes, it does show that one in three said that they expected that they would, or probably would, leave teaching, but half of them will be retiring. They are not going to leave teaching because they are disaffected because of Government policy; they are retiring because of their age. It is absurd to create this scaremongering about recruitment and retention in our schools. What is more interesting about the survey is that it demonstrates that teachers are concerned about issues of bureaucracy and work load, and that is why we are addressing those issues. That is also why we are making positive proposals for the remodelling of the school work force, and I hope that the Conservatives will give us their support when we publish them.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) rises again, I must tell him that he must restrict his question to the county of Essex.

Damian Green: Sorry. The Minister's response was unbelievably complacent. Teachers in Essex cite three main reasons for being fed up with their job: unnecessary paperwork, initiative overload and a target-driven culture. Those are the three defining failures of Labour education policy. Will he acknowledge that, unless he admits to teachers in Essex that the gentleman in Whitehall does not always know best, he will continue to drive teachers out of our schools and, in doing so, betray pupils and parents.

Stephen Twigg: I have not seen the survey broken down by county; obviously the hon. Gentleman has. My understanding, however, is that it shows that less than 6 per cent. of the teachers surveyed intend to leave teaching altogether. That is simply the reality, and it is a low figure. My colleagues and I are not complacent; we recognise that there are issues around teacher work load and questions of bureaucracy. That is why we are addressing them, and I would encourage Members on both sides of the House to support our proposals for remodelling the work force, whether it be in Essex, Kent or any other part of the country.

Pupil Behaviour

Vernon Coaker: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps he is taking to tackle poor pupil behaviour.

Ivan Lewis: We are investing nearly #470 million over the next three years in a national behaviour and attendance strategy to support schools. We are also introducing radical measures to reinforce parental responsibility.

Vernon Coaker: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, and I recognise the work that the Government are doing to tackle behaviour and discipline problems in schools. Will he look at the proposal to reintroduce special allowances for teachers who work in the toughest schools—what used to be called educational priority area special allowances? Would that not be a good way of overcoming some of the problems of recruitment and retention of teachers in our toughest schools, and a way of tackling some of the most difficult behavioural problems that those schools experience?

Ivan Lewis: My hon. Friend makes an important point about rewarding the unsung heroes of the teaching profession who make a real difference, often in the most challenging circumstances. Of course, he speaks from personal experience. Indeed, I have often thought that his previous career—achieving positive results with difficult children—makes him a credible future candidate for Speaker of the House, although we do not expect a vacancy for many years to come.
	More seriously, our package of investment and reform to reinforce respect and discipline in our schools is ground breaking. It will provide support for heads and teachers, and achieve an appropriate balance between rights and responsibilities among our young people and their parents. We are the first Government to tackle behaviour head on, because we believe that it is crucial to raising standards in our schools.

Phil Willis: Will the Minister say what he feels has contributed more to the disillusionment of our young people—indiscipline in our schools, the rise of the drug and gun culture, rap music as suggested by the Home Secretary or the Government's obsession with targets, testing and league tables?
	Can the Minister point to a single Government target that has improved the lot of our black ethnic minority students, who are more likely to be excluded from school; our special educational needs students, who are seven times more likely to be excluded from school; and those youngsters in our inner cities, who are failing in greater numbers under this Government than under the deplorable Government who preceded them?

Ivan Lewis: The hon. Gentleman does an injustice to an extremely complex issue by pointing to a particular element that causes ill-discipline, poor behaviour and difficulties that young people experience. We know that a combination of the need for better support for teachers, opportunities for teachers to withdraw difficult pupils from classes, ensuring that we have tough exclusion policies and ensuring that we have a curriculum that turns young people on rather than off is involved, but it is also true, as Members have said, that the influences that impact on young people outside the school environment, such as rap music, make a difference to their perception of their community and the society in which they live. We need a combination of measures to support teachers, enforce parental responsibility and ensure that we offer a curriculum that inspires and energises our young people.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Will the Minister look into the deplorable situation in which Pencoed comprehensive school successfully defended an appeal on a temporary exclusion but was lumbered with a #20,000 bill? If it had gone for a permanent exclusion, the local education authority would have picked up the tab. Surely it is not acceptable that #20,000 will go into legal fees rather than books and teachers.

Ivan Lewis: Of course, we are willing to have a look at that specific issue. We recently introduced new guidance on reforming exclusion processes in our schools, but we must support head teachers, ensure that there is an appropriate balance between the interests of individual pupils and the school community as a whole and ensure that the exclusion process makes sense for teachers, pupils and parents.

Nicholas Winterton: I am sure the Minister agrees that bad pupil behaviour in schools is not the fault of the Government or of any political party, but it is a growing and serious problem. Having talked to many teachers in recent times, both in this country and in Austria, where I have been for a short time, I may say that part of the problem is that there are few sanctions available to teachers in order to deal with indiscipline. Without structure and discipline in our schools, the teacher cannot provide the best education for the majority of pupils. Will the Government attend to providing sanctions so that those who behave badly do not impede the education of the majority of pupils?

Ivan Lewis: A range of initiatives that the Government have introduced is beginning to tackle behaviour directly. Let me list those initiatives briefly: learning support units, learning mentors, behaviour in education support teams, curriculum reform for 14-year-olds, parenting contracts and orders, police in schools, the reform of exclusion panels, pupil referral units, full-time education for permanently excluded pupils, truancy sweeps and the fast-track prosecution of parents who do not co-operate. Not one of those interventions was available under the Government supported by the hon. Gentleman.

Education Funding

Linda Gilroy: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proposals he has to increase funding available for the further and higher education sectors.

Margaret Hodge: We have announced the largest ever investment in further education over the next three years. Funding will rise by #1.2 billion, an increase of 19 per cent. in real terms, as part of a radical and ambitious reform and investment strategy which links funding to college performance. The higher education strategy document to be published later this month will set out our vision for the rest of the decade, including funding.

Linda Gilroy: My hon. Friend will know of the importance attached by Plymouth college of further education and Plymouth university to increasing access for young people from families whose members have not traditionally attended universities and colleges of further education. Will she ensure that funding increases, and the vision in the Green Paper, focus on increasing the amount spent on achieving higher rates of access and recognising the relationship between further and higher education?

Margaret Hodge: I applaud the colleges in my hon. Friend's constituency for the work they are doing to ensure that more young people from low-income and non-traditional backgrounds have access to higher education. I confirm what was said by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State: we will put access, and the ability of people with talent to attend university, at the top of the agenda in our strategy paper.

John Pugh: Given that many colleges throughout the country are uncertain about their finances because of glitches in the Learning and Skills Council's software, and given that even the helplines do not know how to help, who does the Minister think is responsible for this software silliness?

Margaret Hodge: I am aware of the problems experienced by further education colleges because of glitches in the information technology system, and I think the situation is unacceptable. I am having discussions with the Learning and Skills Council to ensure that it sorts out the problems as quickly as possible. I share the hon. Gentleman's concern.

Lorna Fitzsimons: It is crucial for many of our constituents that the balance between further and higher education, in terms of funding, remains an issue in the forthcoming review. The much-needed expansion in access for the non-traditional entrants by whom many of our communities are over-represented must be based on access, via further education, to higher education. Will my hon. Friend assure me that the mistakes resulting from the last Government's falsely competitive funding system, which forced higher education institutions to compete for a top-up 10 per cent., will not be repeated in the review?

Margaret Hodge: I welcome my hon. Friend's comments, welcome her back to the Chamber, and wish her well as a mother. I assure her that by the time her child enters further and higher education—indeed, by the time her child is at secondary school—we shall have ensured that that child benefits from the highest standards and the best opportunities.
	Let me deal with my hon. Friend's serious point about the links between further and higher education, and the way in which those links can support progress. I entirely agree with her views, which will be reflected in the strategy document.

Norman Lamb: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the financing of universities.

Andrew Turner: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the funding of higher education institutions.

Margaret Hodge: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State acknowledged in the issue papers published in November that current public funding for higher education institutions in England was not enough to enable them to compete with the rest of the world. The higher education strategy document to be published later this month will set out our vision for the rest of the decade, including funding.

Norman Lamb: Does the Minister agree with the view expressed by the Secretary of State and reported in The Guardian on 19 December that
	Xthe up-front fee . . . is the most serious disincentive to people from poor backgrounds coming into universities"
	—although four studies commissioned by the Department, and published on its website, make clear that fear of debt seriously deters students in general, and students from disadvantaged backgrounds in particular, from thinking of going to university? Will the Government's proposals take account of the clear findings of those studies?

Margaret Hodge: We accept that both large up-front payments and fear of debt are factors that inhibit some young people from lower-income backgrounds from attending university. We also know that there are other important factors that we need to tackle, the first of which is to get young people to stay on at school to achieve more, and to get them to aim higher, raise their aspirations and see university as an option for them, rather than as an option simply for the middle classes.

Andrew Turner: Reverting to the answer that the Minister gave to the substantive question, what is the size of the institutional funding gap that she is seeking to plug?

Margaret Hodge: There have been various assessments of the funding gap, but it would not be helpful to give a specific figure at this time.

Tim Boswell: Is it #9 billion?

Margaret Hodge: Well, the figure given by Universities UK is about #9.9 billion. That is one figure, but the answer depends on the options chosen. We think that there is a substantial funding gap and we are looking at ways of filling it over time. However, as I said, giving a specific figure at this time is not helpful.

David Chaytor: In the context of student finance, is it not true that, in addition to the graduate premium that distinguishes between the earnings of graduates and of non-graduates, there is a differential graduate premium that distinguishes between the earnings of graduates of Britain's leading research universities and of graduates of the smaller universities? If it is logical to make graduates contribute to the cost of their tuition, is it not equally logical to make graduates of the leading research universities contribute an additional amount to their tuition costs?

Margaret Hodge: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that graduate premiums do differ, both according to the institution attended and to the subject studied. That is one of the factors that we are bearing in mind as we think about future funding of higher education and support for students.

Andy Reed: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that one of the many difficulties faced by universities is the payment and retention of university staff. In making sure that universities offer a future for students, it is necessary to ensure that teaching, as well as research, is of the highest quality. In making certain that that happens, is she taking into consideration the pay gap experienced by those working in higher education institutions such as Loughborough university?

Margaret Hodge: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend: if we are to maintain and enhance the quality of teaching in our institutions, we must attract good quality teachers, and if we are to enhance our research capacity, we must attract into the sector, and keep, the best academics. Out of interest, since 1993 the real earnings of male academics in higher education have fallen by 0.4 per cent. That compares with a growth of about 5.8 per cent. in male professional earnings in general. That is one of the issues that we are looking at in our higher education reform.

James Paice: The hon. Lady is on record as repeatedly saying that this graduate premium—the average earnings of a graduate, compared with a non-graduate—is justification for expecting a graduate to contribute to the unspecified funding gap that she referred to earlier. However, if 50 per cent. of that age group are to become graduates, it is surely logical to expect that, in time, 50 per cent. of the work force will be graduates. Will not the graduate premium be substantially diminished, therefore, thereby completely countering the point that she repeatedly tries to make?

Margaret Hodge: Interestingly enough, evidence emerging from the massive expansion in higher education that took place when the hon. Gentleman's party was in government demonstrates that the graduate premium not only sustained itself during that period, but, if anything, gradually went up. Our analysis tends to suggest that, given the demands that will be required of the labour market, there is no evidence that the graduate premium will be diminished as we expand the number of people who attend higher education institutions to fulfil the needs of the labour market.

Teachers' Pay

Gordon Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the impact of pay rates on the scale of migration of teachers between further education and schools.

David Miliband: The Department does not collect data on the number of further education teachers leaving to work in schools. However, one local government survey suggests that 1 per cent. of full-time recruits to secondary schools—about 210 staff from an FE complement of 46,000—are from the FE or higher education sectors. The additional #1.2 billion of investment in FE by 2005–06 will allow colleges to address recruitment, retention and reward issues.

Gordon Prentice: I would have expected many more teachers to leave further education and move into schools, as the starting salary for a schoolteacher is #3,000 higher than for a teacher in FE. The Association of Colleges says that teacher vacancies in FE are running at twice the level as in schools. When will we move towards parity between teachers in schools and in FE colleges?

David Miliband: My hon. Friend raises an important point. He will know that the top of the FE scale is about #27,000 a year, whereas the top of the schoolteachers' main scale is #25,000 and the top of the schoolteachers' upper scale is #32,000. The pay systems for schools and FE are negotiated differently. In the end, pay comparability will depend, for schools, on the review body for schools and, for FE, on the negotiations between employers and teacher representatives. Those negotiations will restart on 13 January. The pay gap can be bridged by means of the money being put into FE as a result of decisions by my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

John Horam: On the subject of the pay and conditions of FE lecturers, will the Minister clear up the confusion caused by remarks made by the Minister for Lifelong Learning and Higher Education in a debate on FE in Westminster Hall in respect of the starter home initiative for key workers? The Minister gave the impression that Government policy had changed and that FE lecturers were now on a par with schoolteachers with regard to that scheme, whereas, hitherto they had to wait in the queue behind nurses, schoolteachers and policemen to benefit from it.

David Miliband: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister for Lifelong Learning and Higher Education would not have wanted to cause any confusion. I promise to write to the hon. Gentleman at the earliest possible juncture to set out the position very clearly.

Brian Iddon: Migration from sixth-form colleges to schools is encouraged by the fact that pupils in such colleges are about #1,000 worse off than their counterparts in sixth forms attached to schools. My 16 to 19-year-olds cannot choose to go to sixth-form colleges attached to schools, as their only option is a sixth-form college. Is it fair that my already deprived young people should be further deprived in that way? When will the Government level up the funding?

David Miliband: The different arrangements that apply in different parts of the country reflect institutional history. However, every pupil in the country will benefit from the increased investment that is being put into the whole sector catering for 14 to 19-year-olds. The increased funding and higher quality will benefit all pupils, whether they are studying in school or college or following a work-based study course.

Literacy Strategy

Nick Gibb: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the role of phonics in the teaching of reading in the Government's English key stage 2 literacy strategy.

Stephen Twigg: The literacy strategy has put phonics at the heart of literacy teaching and has brought about what Ofsted described in its recent report as a Xmarked shift" in teachers' attitudes to, and understanding of, phonics.

Nick Gibb: That answer is very welcome, but Ofsted also reports that 41 per cent. of seven-year-olds fail to reach the expected standard in writing, and that 31 per cent. fail in reading. Does the Minister agree with Ryan Conor, the special adviser to the previous Secretary of State, that synthetic phonics is a more effective method for teaching reading than the approach adopted by the national literacy strategy? Although it is to be welcomed that 25,000 year 3 teachers are to be taught phonics, what further measures is he taking to ensure that the synthetic phonics method is more widely used throughout years 1 to 4 of primary education, as also recommended by Ofsted?

Stephen Twigg: I think that the hon. Gentleman means Conor Ryan, not Ryan Conor. The issue of phonics is central to the national literacy strategy and we take very seriously the remarks made by Ofsted. We believe that the model that we are using—the combination of synthetic and analytic phonics—is the correct one. Known as the Searchlights model, it is based on experience in this country and in other parts of the world, including the US. This week, I have written to all primary school head teachers and chairs of governors to reaffirm the importance of the national literacy strategy and the central importance of phonics in that strategy's success.

Fiona Mactaggart: Does my hon. Friend share my anxiety that the early huge achievements delivered by the national literacy strategy in improving literacy standards in the number of children leaving primary schools in Slough—the figure has risen from 50 per cent. to nearly three quarters—has slowed down, and that there is a lack of refreshment and re-energising in improvements in literacy in our primary schools? What does he intend to do to re-energise the national literacy strategy in primary education?

Stephen Twigg: My hon. Friend is absolutely right—we must praise the progress that has been made. In 1997, only 63 per cent. of our 11-year-olds were achieving what we would expect in terms of literacy, and now the figure is 75 per cent. That is a major advance. However, for one in four of our 11-year-olds not to achieve what we would expect in their literacy standards is not acceptable. That is why I announced this week that there will be extra training and additional booster classes for young people. This year, for the first time, 1,000 Easter schools across the country will be aimed at giving year 6 pupils that final additional support in preparation for their year 6 tests.
	I do not rest on my laurels and neither does the team. We believe that the advances that have been made are very important. We have an ambitious target of reaching 85 per cent. next year. We will work to achieve that and this strategy is central to our ability to do so.

Higher Education

Alan Whitehead: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the procedures for satisfying criteria for the grant of university titles to higher education institutions.

Charles Clarke: The criteria for degree-awarding powers and university title were last reviewed in 1998. Our plans on this matter will be set out in our strategy document to be published later this month; I can confirm to my hon. Friend that the document will address the issue. Indeed, I discussed it with a delegation from the Standing Conference of Principals yesterday, which included the chief executive of the Southampton institute.

Alan Whitehead: I thank my right hon. Friend for that interesting and encouraging reply. Does he accept that the present system appears to hold out the prospect of an exponential number of new universities and that while any institute of higher education can claim that it is on the road to university status, the reality is that very few, if any, new universities will be created in the foreseeable future? Is he prepared to say that a new system may well reflect reality more closely?

Charles Clarke: I am certainly prepared to say that I agree with the thrust of my hon. Friend's remarks. One of the sadnesses of the current degree-awarding status and status discussion is that the quality of teaching undergraduates is not sufficiently recognised. There are many higher education institutions, including ones in his constituency and serving Southampton, which, although first-class teaching institutions, find it difficult to compete in the marketplace for undergraduates because they cannot call themselves universities. This has been a serious issue for a long time. That is why I confirmed that we are looking at this extremely carefully and we expect to say something about it in the document that will be published later this month.

Top-up Fees

Alistair Carmichael: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the Government's policy regarding university top-up fees.

Simon Burns: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on university top-up fees.

Margaret Hodge: We will shortly publish a strategy document setting out our 10-year vision for the development and reform of higher education, including the outcome of the student finance review. After that there will be further opportunity for interested parties to comment.

Alistair Carmichael: The Minister is aware that her Labour colleagues in Scotland have been persuaded to take a rather more enlightened approach to tuition fees and student finance. Obviously, her consultation could have a spin-off impact on the position north of the border. What assurances can she give me that her consultation will involve the closest possible conduct with Scottish Ministers?

Margaret Hodge: A different approach is being taken by our colleagues in Scotland. That is a strength of devolution which I hope the hon. Gentleman applauds. Of course, we have regular conversations with our colleagues in Scotland and we will consult with them. If there are different systems in place, that is a good thing, not a bad thing.

Simon Burns: Does the Minister accept that many parents in my constituency are extremely concerned about the mixed messages put out by the Government on top-up fees and the apparent breach of Labour's election manifesto? Will she seek to remedy some of the confusion? Media reports suggest that the Secretary of State has said that he will rule out all top-up fees, yet the spokesman for the Department for Education and Skills has said that the Secretary of State will rule out only large top-up fees?

Margaret Hodge: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's constituents will be pleased to share with us the findings of our strategy review, which we shall publish in a couple of weeks. I ask him and his constituents to wait until that time. I should like to say to his constituents and to their children that the purpose of the review is to ensure not only that we put university funding on a proper, secure footing, which is very important after the 36 per cent. cut in funding experienced under the hon. Gentleman's Government, but that student funding is put on a sustainable long-term footing.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

The Solicitor-General was asked—

Official Secrets Acts

Andrew MacKinlay: To ask the Solicitor-General if she will make a statement on her policy relating to prosecution of offences under the Official Secrets Acts.

Harriet Harman: The Attorney-General's consent is required to bring a prosecution for most offences contrary to the Official Secrets Acts 1911 or 1989. The Attorney-General considers first whether there is enough evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction. If there is sufficient evidence, the Attorney-General considers whether a prosecution is needed in the public interest. The more serious the offence the more likely it is that a prosecution will be needed.

Andrew MacKinlay: Ah, so the Attorney-General is to blame then. Next time, I wonder whether the right hon. and learned Lady will counsel her clients in the security and intelligence services that the Official Secrets Act is a deficient and blunt instrument, as well as one that does not meet European norms. Cases such as Shayler, Ponting or Sarah Tisdall, where the judge says, XYou wicked, wicked man—six weeks in the slammer", really do not advance national security. We need new, modern legislation that will protect our critical interest as well as allowing justice to prevail and allowing people to give the truth when there has been bad mismanagement or irregularity in the security and intelligence services.

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend makes three points. The first was on whether we are compliant with our European obligations. The House of Lords has considered the Official Secrets Act and has decided that it is in compliance with the Human Rights Act 1998.
	I think that my hon. Friend's second point related to the sentence in the Shayler case. In fact, the judge said that his starting point would have been 18 months in the circumstances of that offence, but he reduced it because the offender had spent time in prison in France.
	On new legislation, obviously the Home Office will keep that issue under review and I am sure that my hon. Friend's comments will have been heard.
	Finally, on the accountability and lawfulness of the security services, it is obviously right that the security services are not above the law and that they should be accountable. We take that point very seriously.

Richard Bacon: On the point that the Solicitor-General has just raised, does she accept that the 1989 Act currently assumes that the internal procedures of the Security Service are incapable of failure? However, given that any procedure is capable of failure, should someone have to be put in the position of committing a crime in order to reveal a crime, without the possibility in law of entering a defence?

Harriet Harman: I think that it used to be the case that it was assumed that the procedure was incapable of failure and that has, rightly, been looked at. The absolute prohibition on a member or former member of the security services giving out intelligence information is mitigated in relation to the public interest in a number of ways. First, as the hon. Gentleman understands, the person can tell their superiors. If that is not acceptable and the person does not want to do that, he can, if he is alleging unlawfulness, go to the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Attorney-General or the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. If someone applies to give out information and is refused by his management, he can judicially review that decision as unreasonable. Of course, we also have the Select Committee which scrutinises the security services. I agree with where the hon. Gentleman is coming from: we must have the right opportunities for unlawful actions to be disclosed if they are taking place, but I hope that the procedures that I have described are actually working in that way.

Victims of Crime

Andrew Turner: To ask the Solicitor-General what steps she is taking to publicise the right of (a) victims of crime and (b) members of the public to seek the review of unduly lenient sentences.

Gordon Marsden: To ask the Solicitor-General what measures her Department plans to take to ensure that victims of crime and their relatives are informed of their right to ask the Attorney-General to consider the referral of a sentence to the Court of Appeal on the grounds of undue leniency.

Harriet Harman: Where a victim complains that a sentence is too lenient, either they or the Crown Prosecution Service can ask the Law Officers to review the sentence. We can then, if we consider it unduly lenient, refer it to the Court of Appeal. We keep the issue of unduly lenient sentences, including publicity of them to victims and the wider public, under review.

Andrew Turner: I thank the right hon. and learned Lady for that answer, but I would draw her attention to the words,
	Xwhat steps she is taking to publicise the right". On 4 July 2002, she told me:
	XWe need to ensure that Members and victims know that the right is there, but that it has to be exercised within 28 days."—[Official Report, 4 July 2002; Vol. 388, c. 392.]
	On 24 October, I asked her an identical question to the one I am asking today, and she did not give me an answer at all. So what steps is she taking to publicise to victims the right that they have to draw the matter to the Attorney-General's attention within 28 days if they believe that an unduly lenient sentence has been given?

Harriet Harman: The actual steps that the hon. Gentleman asks about are that, where there has been a conviction and sentence, the case will have been prosecuted by the Crown Prosecution Service, and it is the responsibility of the CPS to liase with the victim. If the victim complains about the sentence being too lenient, there is an obligation on the CPS to consider it. The CPS can then refer it to us or, if it is not prepared to do so, the procedure is that it should tell the victim, XWe, the CPS, are not going to refer it to the Law Officers, but you can."
	I anticipate the hon. Gentleman's thoughts, as he will not be able to make the next point, which is that the problem is the time limit: the complaint has to be made within 28 days of sentence. There is an absolute cut-off point, so that the sentence increase should not hang over a defendant when he has been convicted. I know that that causes difficulties, but we want to be sure that the CPS tells victims if it is not going to refer a sentence to us.

Gordon Marsden: My right hon. and learned Friend is well aware of the concerns that I have raised about this issue involving cases in Blackpool, where manslaughter verdicts relating to domestic violence were followed by sentences that the relatives and I consider to be excessively lenient. I am very well aware of her concerns about the issue, but given the problems that arise from time to time not least with the CPS and the information process in this respect, if we are not to be proactive in taking further publicity steps about this right, will she at least undertake to consider whether there should be a wider review, in which the whole question of the 28-day period is properly reviewed, because it is clear from a number of examples that the right is not always automatically adequate to assist victims or their relatives in the present circumstances?

Harriet Harman: The first point that I would make in response to my hon. Friend's question is that, when the House discussed the Criminal Justice Act 1988, it was specifically decided that this would not be a general prosecution right of appeal against sentence, nor would it be a victim's right of appeal against sentence; it was a kind of special, exceptional jurisdiction. I know that that feels very uncomfortable for some victims who would like to appeal.
	As for the process, there are difficulties with the tight time limit. Again, it was decided by the House—it is in statute, in primary legislation—that the application has to be referred within 28 days or it falls. That is designed to protect the defendant from the sense that he has an increase in sentence hanging over him.
	As for domestic violence sentencing, my hon. Friend knows that sentencing is obviously a matter for the judges, but the Attorney-General and I have referred a number of domestic violence sentences, involving both homicide and assault, during the past 12 months, and we will refer domestic sentences where they appear to us to be unduly lenient.

Nick Hawkins: The Solicitor-General should be aware that the public's main concern about unduly lenient sentences relates to unduly lenient sentences for burglary. Will she take this opportunity comprehensively to reject the ludicrous statements by the Lord Chancellor, supporting Lord Woolf's guidelines, and say today that she agrees instead with Prime Minister's spokesman that those who commit burglary should face lengthy custodial sentences? There has been enormous Government confusion on that. The Lord Chancellor is entirely wrong, and ordinary people want burglars to be sent to prison.

Harriet Harman: I entirely agree with the Lord Chancellor, and I stand strongly behind what he said. As far as unduly lenient sentences for burglary are concerned, they are not referable by the Law Officers to the Court of Appeal because they are triable each way. Only cases that are only triable on indictment are referable to the Court of Appeal.

John Burnett: Will the Solicitor-General confirm that in cases of unduly lenient sentences, and in all prosecutions, a claim for public interest immunity will only be made by the prosecution on the grounds that public disclosure of the material would constitute a serious threat to national security or to protect police informants?

Harriet Harman: The hon. Gentleman is right. The provision is wide-ranging in relation to public interest immunity, which allows material to be kept from the defendant. He is absolutely right that national security and the protection of informants are grounds for claiming public interest immunity, but they are not the only grounds. The courts have said that other categories of public interest might qualify, but, clearly, it is an exceptionally serious matter.

Business of the House

Greg Knight: Will the Leader of the House please give us the business for next week?

Robin Cook: The business for next week is as follows:
	Monday 13 January—Opposition Day [2nd allotted day]. Until 7 o'clock there will be a debate entitled XFailure of the Home Secretary to Provide a Credible Criminal Justice System", followed by a debate entitled XFailure of the Government's Drugs Policy". Both debates arise on an Opposition motion.
	Tuesday 14 January—Until about 4 o'clock there will be an Opposition half day [unallotted] on a motion in the name of the Ulster Unionist party entitled XThe Future of Education in Northern Ireland", followed by a debate on the London bid for the 2012 Olympic games on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
	Wednesday 15 January—Remaining stages of the Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Bill.
	Thursday 16 January—Motions on General Synod Measures, followed by a motion to take note of various European documents relating to fisheries policy.
	Friday 17 January—The House will not be sitting.
	The provisional business for the week after will be:
	Monday 20 January—Opposition Day [3rd allotted day], there will be a debate on an Opposition motion subject to be announced.
	Tuesday 21 January—Debate on House of Lords reform on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
	The House will wish to know that there will be a further debate during the week commencing 3 February in which Members will have an opportunity to vote on the seven options recommended by the Joint Committee.
	Wednesday 22 January—Debate on defence in the world on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
	Thursday 23 January—Remaining stages of the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill.
	Friday 24 January—The House will not be sitting.
	I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for Thursday 30 January will be:
	Thursday 30 January—A debate on the report from the European Scrutiny Committee on democracy and accountability in the EU and the role of national parliaments.

Greg Knight: I thank the Leader of the House for his reply. We are rather surprised that he has announced a debate on defence in the world for 22 January. Does not he recall that we had a debate on that very subject on 17 October last year, less than three months ago? The next defence debate that the House was expecting was one on defence procurement. With so many decisions awaited on new defence equipment, should not Members on both sides of the House be given an opportunity to raise those issues in debate? Why is he allowing Defence Ministers to dodge scrutiny on such issues, when many Members, including a large number of Labour Members, wish to express their views, particularly on the aircraft carrier project in which BAE Systems is a key contender? As he has said that this business is still only provisional, will he consider changing it to allow the House to debate defence procurement on that date?
	Flooding remains a serious issue that has returned to devastate parts of the UK over the past few days, with many people suffering severe losses and the trauma of being forced to flee their homes. In view of changing weather patterns, it is clear that much more needs to be done. May we have an early debate on the Government's strategy on this now near annual emergency? It is important that the House is able to examine what is being done following the warning given by the Institution of Civil Engineers as long ago as 2001. It said that the Government's plans were Xpiecemeal and inadequate" and it concluded that spending on flood defences ought to be doubled. If the recommendations in the report have not been fully implemented, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Government must take most of the blame for the scale of the latest devastation?
	On the subject of modernisation, has the Leader of the House any plans to improve and update the way in which members of the Cabinet communicate—not with the public, but with each other? May we have an early debate on that? Is he aware of the widespread concern that there has been a complete breakdown in Government collective responsibility this week? That is not just our view—the newspapers have been full of it. The Independent of 8 January said:
	XReform of the House of Lords was in disarray yesterday after the Lord Chancellor warned that many MPs and Peers had rejected the 'nonsense' of a partly-elected second Chamber."
	It went on to say:
	XBut he was immediately contradicted by Robin Cook, the Leader of the Commons, who insisted he favoured a 'mixed' House of Lords."
	Meanwhile, on the same day, the Daily Mail reported on the Government's foreign policy under the headline
	XCabinet is rocked as Hoon rebukes Straw on strategy".
	The article by its political editor stated:
	XDefence Secretary Geoff Hoon delivered a stinging rebuke to Foreign Secretary Jack Straw for playing down prospects of an Iraqi conflict."
	The paper added:
	XThe row also left Government policy on the approaching conflict looking confused and unfocused."
	That was not all. On the very same day, there was more evidence that the Cabinet is coming apart at the seams. Other reports said:
	XDowning Street slapped down Lord Irvine yesterday after he insisted it was right to keep burglars out of jail."
	One article by Paul Eastham rightly concluded:
	XBy intervening so heavily, the Government has effectively humiliated its most senior law officer."
	In the midst of all this, where was the Prime Minister? He was telling a conference of ambassadors in London—and apparently he was serious—that under his leadership
	XBritain's role was to unite the world and act as a unifier."
	He should start talking to members of his own party. In view of the widespread appeal of this ongoing free-for-all among Ministers, is there not a case for modernising the Government's procedures and perhaps allowing the next meeting of the Cabinet to be televised?

Robin Cook: Happy new year to the right hon. Gentleman, too.
	I am rather surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should be surprised that we are holding a debate on defence in the world. Quite a lot has happened to defence in the world since 17 October, and I remind him of a technical but important point. The previous debate took place in another parliamentary Session; we are committed to holding a debate on defence in the world in each parliamentary Session. That is why we have again tabled the subject for debate. I will, of course, consult my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on whether he wishes to hold that debate or the other debate on defence procurement on that day. However, I have often observed the House of Commons in action and noted the ingenuity of Members, and I do not think that it is beyond their skill to find a way to bring within order comments on an aircraft carrier in a debate on defence in the world, to which they are plainly relevant.
	I am pleased to report that there have been substantial increases in spending on flood prevention since the last floods and since the observation was made in 2001. That may partly explain why fewer houses were inundated during these floods than there were two years ago.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked us to double spending on flood prevention, but that would be very difficult to achieve in the context of a 20 per cent. reduction in spending, which is the formal policy of the Opposition. I remain to be convinced about whether they can flesh it out, but we have an hour of questions before us, so I shall welcome, and take careful note of, observations from any Conservative Member who wishes to propose a 20 per cent. cut in public spending in his or her constituency. I will make sure that the Government act on that request.
	The right hon. Gentleman is perhaps guilty of wish fulfilment by claiming that the Cabinet is falling apart at the seams. The Lord Chancellor and I have repeatedly said, including in statements to the House last summer, that there will be a free vote on House of Lords reform. It is a bit inconsistent for the right hon. Gentleman's party to welcome our commitment to a free vote in Parliament so that it can settle the matter but then complain that there is not a collective decision in the Government on what Parliament should vote for.
	I am glad to take this opportunity to say that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has played an excellent role in ensuring that the Iraqi crisis is dealt with in the United Nations and that it is kept firmly anchored there. Through those efforts, we achieved a resolution that was unanimously agreed by the Security Council and got the inspectors back into Iraq, which I thought would be welcomed by all hon. Members. I am sure that the House will wish to join me in congratulating my right hon. Friend on that.

Paul Tyler: We have just heard the Leader of the House speak warmly of the Foreign Secretary. Can he explain why the Foreign Secretary decided to make an extremely important statement on Iraq by way of a written statement on Tuesday given that there are two most extraordinary reasons why it should have been an oral statement on which we could have cross-questioned him? For the first time yesterday, time was allocated for statements to the House to allow Secretaries of State to explain what they are up to and to allow us to question them. Why was that opportunity not taken? To add insult to injury, my copy of Hansard yesterday did not contain the statement from the Foreign Secretary. I understand that that was subsequently corrected, but Hansard did not have that statement as a written submission. I hope the Leader of the House accepts that that is outrageous.
	What plans does the Leader of the House have for further discussions with Opposition parties about pre-legislative scrutiny? What progress has been made on that, and what are the candidates this Session? In particular, will he consider the case made by both main Opposition parties for a civil service draft Bill? He will be aware that the report of the Wicks committee is imminent. Surely that must be a strong candidate for pre-legislative scrutiny.
	What discussions does the Leader of the House intend to have with Opposition parties about appropriate Bills for carry-over in this Session? I notice that this morning's papers report that yesterday he canvassed the views of the parliamentary Labour party on candidates for carry-over. Perhaps he will also talk to other Members of the House, since he is Leader of the House, not leader of the PLP.
	Finally, will the Leader of the House find an opportunity for a statement on appropriate penalties for excessive speeding on the roads? Unfortunately, there was no chance earlier for the Solicitor-General to make a statement, but no doubt she would like to do so.

Robin Cook: I am happy to deal with the last point first. My right hon. and learned Friend has just completed answering oral questions. I was with her throughout that period and she handled herself with great competence and authority. She is doing an excellent job and will continue to do so. On the matter to which the hon. Gentleman alludes, she has said that she is sorry for what happened and will of course plead guilty at the first opportunity. I hope that the House will now let the matter close.
	We heard an oral statement on Iraq on Tuesday from the Defence Secretary. The Foreign Secretary has addressed the House many times on Iraq and will continue to do so. I do not think that anyone can fairly accuse the Government of not keeping the House fully informed of developments in Iraq or of not giving it opportunities to cross-examine Ministers and to express its views. We will continue to maintain that record.
	On Hansard, I cannot explain why the written statement did not appear; we will make inquiries about that. Since we introduced the new system, it has, on the whole, been to the benefit of Members and the public because it provides a clearly identifiable and transparent system for Ministers to make statements, as opposed to the surreptitious device of planted questions. I am glad we have put that behind us.
	It is early in the Session to decide which Bills might be appropriate for carry-over. As I repeatedly said when we discussed that in the autumn, the issue of carry-over will arise only for Bills introduced after Easter. I fully accept, however, that when we reach that point we will want to carry the House with us and that we will have to consult other parties on appropriate Bills.
	Similarly, with pre-legislative scrutiny I am very keen that the House should have the chance to scrutinise Bills in draft, because I believe that the earlier it can get in on the act, the better its opportunity to influence the shape of Bills will be. That is why I have committed the Government to trying to produce more Bills in draft during this Session and the next.
	As the hon. Gentleman will be aware from previous Sessions, draft Bills tend to appear towards the latter half of the Session because our efforts are necessarily focused in the first half on the official Bills for consideration. I fully understand the interest of Select Committees and others, particularly the Chairman of the Liaison Committee, in knowing in advance what Bills may come before the House for pre-legislative scrutiny, and I will endeavour to make sure that everybody is kept informed.

Harry Barnes: May we have a debate on the declaration adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in its special session on children in May, entitled XA World Fit for Children"? It includes the statement:
	XChildren must be protected from the horrors of armed conflict."
	As 42 per cent. of Iraq's population are children of 14 and under, it would be appropriate to have that debate before Britain enters into any armed conflict with Iraq, so that we can see how we will live up to the provisions in the declaration.

Robin Cook: I fully understand my hon. Friend's interest in this matter. He will be pleased to know that, in UN discussions, the United Kingdom has consistently supported the rights of children and wanted to make sure that we provide strong international norms for the respect of children's rights and the treatment of children. I only share with the House my deep regret that it is doubtful whether any of those norms, standards or rights will be observed by Saddam Hussein.

Anne McIntosh: The Leader of the House may be aware that the Vale of York suffered substantial flooding over the Christmas holiday, although on this occasion no homes near Thirsk were flooded. Will he give the House the opportunity of an early debate to consider two matters?
	First, the Minister with responsibility for flooding should come to the House to consider the archaic procedure whereby the Environment Agency is responsible only for the main watercourses, and not for minor watercourses such as Cod beck, which in this case burst its banks dramatically. Such incidents are the responsibility of internal drainage boards. Will the Leader of the House review the matter by providing a debate in which the Minister responsible can respond to our concerns?
	Secondly, it seems perverse that insurance policies will no longer cover the flooding of homes built on functional flood plains. Developers of such homes will probably have made a substantial profit by building them, but it will be the homeowner's responsibility for making sure that they are flood-proof. Will the Leader of the House invite the responsible Minister from the Department of Trade and Industry to respond to our concerns at the earliest opportunity?

Robin Cook: The hon. Lady's point about the lack of consistency in responsibility is a matter that should be addressed, and I shall certainly draw it to the attention of the relevant Minister.
	Insurance policies are primarily a matter for the insurance industry, but I have a lot of sympathy with the point that lies behind the hon. Lady's question. It is now clear that many housing developers have put up developments, sold the houses and invited willing purchasers to move in without adequate forethought to the risk to which they were exposing those new homeowners. I hope that the lesson of the past two years means that developers will be much more careful about where they site homes and much more frank with those purchasing them about the risk.

Tom Cox: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the recent presidential and parliamentary elections in Kenya. As former President Moi's corrupt and incompetent Government have finally been defeated, will my right hon. Friend assure the House that, as Kenya is a Commonwealth country, we will do all that we can to work with the new Administration as they develop their economic and social policies and that, at the appropriate time, a debate on those developments will take place in the House?

Robin Cook: Like my hon. Friend, I very much welcome the fact that the population of Kenya have had an opportunity to carry through a democratic process and to choose the Government for whom they voted. As a friend of Kenya, Britain will make it a high priority of its foreign policy to make sure that we support that democratic process, so that it can deepen and develop and be entrenched in future constitutional activities in Kenya. Obviously, we stand ready to work with the new Government on developing ways to deal with the poverty that many Kenyan people face. We are proud of the fact that our overseas aid to Africa has increased by 50 per cent. over the Government's lifetime.

John Bercow: In light of the welcome revelation and admission in The Times today by the General Secretary of the Labour party that the Labour party is guilty of no fewer than 120 breaches of funding law, amounting to a sum of approximately #300,000, would the Leader of the House consider the merits of an early debate on honesty in government so that the House can properly compare and contrast the welcome and refreshing candour of the Labour General Secretary on the one hand and the Government's continuing failure to admit to failures in health, education, transport and the fight against crime on the other?

Robin Cook: I very much welcome the hon. Gentleman's tribute to the honesty of the Labour party, and we shall seek to build on the support that he has offered us. I shall find every possible opportunity for the Government to be honest and frank with the House about the fact that in the health service we have more nurses and doctors than ever before, and that for the first time in 30 years we have more beds in the NHS rather than less beds—

John Bercow: Fewer.

Robin Cook: I am sorry, I do not know what point the hon. Gentleman is trying to make. The fact is that the number of acute and general beds in the NHS has increased in the past year after 30 years during which the numbers declined, including a dramatic decline in the period when the Conservative Government were in office. They will decline dramatically again under any Conservative Government committed to a 20 per cent. cut in public spending.

Tom Clarke: Does my right hon. Friend share my concern about the deteriorating situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo? As a former distinguished Foreign Secretary, does he agree that the international community does indeed have a role to play in seeking to prevent further genocide in the great lakes region? Is there perhaps a possibility of a debate in the House?

Robin Cook: The situation in Congo is tragic, and has been both violent and unstable for a long period. I agree with my right hon. Friend that the international community does have a responsibility. Britain has sought to work with our European partners, particularly France and Belgium, to find ways in which the support of the international community can be used to try to bring an end to the suffering of the people of Congo and to start to develop the country's substantial assets. One of the great tragedies is that the country is perpetually assailed on all sides by violence because it contains riches that are used to enrich not local people but local warlords. I assure my right hon. Friend that the Government will continue to do all that we can to work with the international community to help the people of Congo.

Alex Salmond: Will the Leader of the House arrange an early debate on proportional representation, of which he and I are long-standing supporters? Does he agree that one of the benefits of PR is that it allows Parliaments to control Executives, and that we should therefore welcome the defeat in the Scottish Parliament last night of the Labour-Liberal Executive's shabby and underhand attempt to close fire stations? Will the Leader of the House arrange for that early debate so that we supporters of PR can further celebrate that example of democracy in action?

Dennis Skinner: Do not expect to win.

Robin Cook: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) for his expression of support, but I rather suspect, taking the advice of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), that I may be unwise to call for a snap vote on that proposition.

Dennis Skinner: The man has brains.

Robin Cook: I thank my hon. Friend for his support. We devolved power to Edinburgh precisely so that the Scottish Parliament can make decisions affecting Scotland. Sometimes those decisions may be ones with which we may not exactly agree, but it is right that the Scottish people and the Scottish Parliament should make them.

Ann McKechin: My right hon. Friend may be aware that the Department of Trade and Industry recently completed a public consultation on the World Trade Organisation negotiations on the general agreement on trade in services. Given the importance of those negotiations to the supply of services, particularly in the public sector in fields such as education, health and transport, will he agree to hold a debate in the Chamber at the earliest possible opportunity so that Members can express their views?

Robin Cook: My hon. Friend makes a point of immense importance about the next trade round and developing a freer trade in services to make sure that developing countries can protect their own economic interests and public services. A balance has to be struck—I can assure her that the Government are well aware of that—and I am sure that over the protracted period of the next trade round there will be opportunities for the House to debate the issue.

Henry Bellingham: Will the Leader of the House turn his attention to the forthcoming cricket world cup fixtures in Zimbabwe? Why have the Government been so slow to focus on the issue and the inevitability of President Mugabe hijacking the tournament for political purposes? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it was only when the Secretary of State for International Development, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short), spoke out on the issue that the Government belatedly started to focus on it? Surely the time has come to stop passing the buck and make some decisions?

Robin Cook: I am very happy to put the record straight, and am glad that the hon. Gentleman has given me the opportunity to disabuse him of the idea that the Government have shown an interest in this matter only recently. As far back as early July, the England and Wales Cricket Board was advised that the Government would not wish the team to go to Zimbabwe. I also think that it is rather unreasonable of the ECB to pretend that it has noticed only in the past few weeks that there is a problem in Zimbabwe. We could not have been clearer about the Government's position—the cricket team should not go, and it would be wrong for it to do so. I agree that, if it does so, there is a risk that President Mugabe will seek to exploit that for a propaganda victory. However, the decision is for the ECB. I understand the difficulty of the decision, but I hope that it will recognise that there are compelling reasons why it should decide not to go.

Andrew MacKinlay: I have a question for my right hon. Friend as a moderniser about next week's business. Half of a core day in the Chamber will be spent on Church of England Measures, but I invite him to consider whether those matters should not be debated in Westminster Hall. Looking around the Chamber, I see Presbyterians, Free Presbyterians, Methodists, Episcopalians, Catholics, lapsed Catholics, people brought up as Catholics, agnostics, followers of Islam and members of Jewish congregations: hands up all those who are communicants of the Church of England—there you are.

Robin Cook: I have to confess that I cannot raise my hand in response to my hon. Friend's challenge. The matter to be discussed next week relates to the consolidation of the Church of England's pension rules, which is undoubtedly important to people who have such a pension. I understand the point made by my hon. Friend, and accept that there is a wider issue to be addressed. However, there are procedures to deal with that, and it is entirely right to retain those procedures at present. As for what may obtain on a future occasion, that is as much a matter for the Church of England as it is for the House of Commons.

Martin Smyth: The reference by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) to Free Presbyterians reminds me that I am truly a Free Presbyterian of the Auld Kirk.
	The Leader of the House will no doubt join me in welcoming the advertising campaign this week dealing with the menace of child abuse and the internet. May we have a statement shortly on the state of conversations between the authorities in the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom on transferring information on known paedophiles travelling to England, Wales and Northern Ireland without giving proper notification to the requisite authorities so that action can be taken?

Robin Cook: The hon. Gentleman raises an important dimension of our fight against the abuse of children, which has become highly internationalised, so it is therefore very important that international authorities co-operate closely. National authorities should be part of that exercise to make sure that we prevent paedophiles from taking advantage of any national authority's ignorance of activity elsewhere. We are therefore seeking the closest possible co-operation with all our European partners, and I shall invite my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to write to the hon. Gentleman setting out what we are doing in that respect with Ireland.

David Winnick: On religious matters, non-believers should not be excluded.
	If there is to be a ministerial statement on the proposed cricket tour of Zimbabwe, as there should be, would not that be a good opportunity, first, to remind the House that although many of us opposed English cricketers playing in apartheid South Africa, the Tories were in favour of that, and secondly, to argue strongly that there is no justification for English cricketers to play in Mugabe's lawless tyranny, and that to do so would be a disgrace?

Robin Cook: If I may say so, we have had several ministerial statements on the issue and they have all been consistent that the cricket team should not go to Zimbabwe. I hear what my hon. Friend says about the parallels with the boycott of South Africa, but as I understand the present situation—and I would not wish to disturb it—there is unity from all political perspectives that it would be a mistake for the cricket team to go to Zimbabwe, that that could hand a propaganda victory to Mugabe, that we should not do so at a time when he is oppressing his people, and that those who go to play or to watch the cricket will be entering a country and eating food in a country where 7 million people are near starvation.

Andrew MacKay: May I ask the Leader of the House to reconsider his last answer? In my recollection, there have been no statements from the Dispatch Box from Ministers responsible for Zimbabwe. That is why so many of us believe that the message from the Government has been blurred. It is not good enough for Ministers to make personal statements, as we had from the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien) in the Westminster Hall debate. We require an urgent statement as soon as possible from a senior Minister, making it abundantly clear how wrong it would be for the cricket team to go to Zimbabwe. Then, I believe, there would be action.

Robin Cook: The Prime Minister said from the Dispatch Box only yesterday that it would be wrong for the cricket team to go. There is no more senior Minister than the Prime Minister. That is an authoritative statement. All statements from Ministers have been consistent. As I understand it—although I am beginning to doubt it—the position of Opposition Members is that the cricket team should not go to Zimbabwe. They do not help to get that message across by suggesting that there has been any weakness, doubt or confusion about where the Government stand on the matter.

John Cryer: The Commission for Integrated Transport recently suggested that the transport subsidies to pensioners should be cut in various ways. One effect of that would be that the freedom pass in London, which covers my constituency, would disappear, and there would be a more uniform subsidy along the lines of the 50 per cent. subsidy in the rest of the country. May we have a statement from the Dispatch Box from a Transport Minister to make it clear that the Government will have nothing to do with such a barmy suggestion, which would curtail my constituents' ability to travel?

Robin Cook: As I understand it, the suggestion to which my hon. Friend refers is not from any Minister, but from an advisory body. It is in the nature of appointing advisory bodies that we receive but do not initiate the advice that they offer to Government. The Government have a good record of making sure that pensioners have an appropriate concessionary fare and are encouraged to travel. It is important that the transport system is fully used, and it is important for pensioners that they are able to get about. I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government will wish to continue to defend the ability of pensioners to travel and to have full opportunities for concessionary fares.

Andrew Rosindell: May I reiterate the comments of the hon. Member for Hornchurch (John Cryer) regarding concessionary travel for pensioners? Will the Leader of the House consider not only a statement, but a debate on concessionary travel throughout the United Kingdom? He will be aware that there are many inconsistencies, whereby old age pensioners can travel within certain regions but not across boundaries. Will he consider a nationwide scheme, so that all pensioners can have access to free travel throughout our country?

Robin Cook: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. We welcome support for the Government's position from whatever quarter. I remind him that it was the Government who introduced the concessionary fare scheme. There was a full debate in the House and his party opposed it at the time. Presumably, in the search for the 20 per cent. savings, to which we have heard little reference in the past 40 minutes, it would be extremely difficult for any future Conservative Government to retain that scheme.

Llew Smith: A number of my hon. Friends are concerned that the Ministry of Defence is continuing to usurp the power of Parliament by continuing with the sale of part of the defence evaluation quango to QinetiQ. Details of the deal were quietly placed in the Library during the recess, so Parliament has effectively been asked to agree on the nod liabilities of about #100 million. May we have a debate on the matter, and on the lack of and the need for public accountability for the use or misuse of massive sums of public money?

Robin Cook: I listened to what my hon. Friend said. I should not have thought that there was any member of the Government left who could imagine that putting a document in the Library was tantamount to doing so in private or without notice. The Ministry of Defence has been open about the matter. My hon. Friend will be aware that a number of items of Government business are done by statutory instrument. That is why statutory instruments are available to us. We have a prodigious programme of primary legislation in the present Session. If we successfully carry it through, we will have passed more pages of primary legislation this Session than in any previous Session. Not everything can be dealt with on the Floor of the House. I regret to have to say that as Leader of the House, but it is a matter of record that we must decide what are the priorities for the Floor of the House, and what other matters can be dealt with by statutory instrument.

Roger Williams: The right hon. Gentleman will know that in just over two months, a European regulation on animal by-products that prevents the burial of fallen stock on farms will come into effect. Britain is one of the few EU countries that has not published a statement or a policy on how farmers should deal with the matter. It will not be possible to stack up animal carcases as fridges have been stacked up in the past, owing to the incompetence of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in these matters. Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Secretary of State to publish as soon as possible a statement on how farmers should proceed to dispose of their fallen stock?

Robin Cook: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government are well aware of the great importance of the matter in rural communities and the severity of the difficulties that may arise. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will wish to clarify our proposals as soon as possible, and I will draw her attention to the hon. Gentleman's remarks.

Harry Cohen: May we have a statement on the London underground, as the contract with the private consortium TubeLines took effect on 1 January without any parliamentary announcement? It is important that we know what arrangements there are for public sector management of those contracts. My understanding is that there is no expertise in place to provide such public sector management. Without that, private consortiums have a blank cheque. Moreover, that represents a step on the road towards privatisation of the underground.

Robin Cook: I was not aware that that was an issue that we had failed to ventilate in the House over the past year. I remember many exchanges on the public-private partnership for the London underground. I can assure my hon. Friend that expertise will be made available to make sure that we maintain competent management. Let us not lose sight of the fact that the objective of the whole exercise is to make sure that we modernise the underground, provide the investment that it plainly needs, and offer a modern, effective service to the underground consumer. That must surely be the right way forward. I hope that we can start to make progress in providing the improvement that passengers and London Underground want.

Julian Lewis: Surely the point about Zimbabwe is that no Minister has made a formal statement to the House and thereby subjected himself to questioning.
	May we have a statement from the Foreign Secretary on a subject first raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), the shadow Defence Secretary, with the Secretary of State for Defence on Tuesday, namely, the attitude of the Government to the UN inspectors and their role in Iraq? It is clear that Saddam Hussein had four years in which to produce chemical and biological weapons stocks, then to destroy the plant that produced them and conceal the stocks in any hole in the ground anywhere in Iraq. The House needs to know what the Government's attitude will be if, as expected, the inspectors fail to find any of those stocks and the Americans decide nevertheless that the danger is so great that they must proceed with military action. This is an important matter. It was raised by the Conservative Opposition and has been taken up by Labour Back Benchers and the Liberal Democrat leader. The House deserves to have its say on the matter.

Robin Cook: It would be impertinent for the House or any member of the Government to try to anticipate what the UN inspectors might say to the United Nations. It will, after all, be only another three weeks before we hear about progress from the head of the inspection team. I expect that he will necessarily say that he will require further time to carry out the task. Surely, the appropriate and responsible attitude for any Government—especially when they are a permanent member of the Security Council—is to say that we want to ensure that the inspectors can carry out that task, that they have adequate time and resources to do so and that the authority that they have been given by the Security Council is fully respected by the Government of Iraq. This should not be a business of the inspectors trying to discover that Iraq is concealing anything. The resolution is explicit in saying that the duty is also on the Government of Iraq to declare what they have.

Jim Sheridan: May I ask my right hon. Friend to consider initiating an inquiry into the abuse of the democratic process of this House by political parties submitting spurious and repetitive questions only to try to portray themselves falsely as working harder than other political parties? Does he further agree that, if other parties were to follow that sharp practice, the administrative processes of this House would grind to a halt and that that would be extremely expensive for the taxpayer?

Robin Cook: I have a lot of sympathy with the point that my hon. Friend makes. I can only commend to him and other Members of the House the excellent report from the Procedure Committee, which rightly pointed out that information requested by means of a written question can often readily be found in the Library or other published sources.

Andrew MacKinlay: I do not accept that.

Robin Cook: I am very sorry to hear that my hon. Friend takes that view, as I was quoting my submission to the Procedure Committee, which it reprinted in full. In making that commitment, I said that, as a Back Bencher, I found it useful to get information in the Library, where it is often readily available. I commend the excellent, competent and authoritative services of the Library to the House.

Bob Spink: Can we find time for a debate on the position of pensioners, who are perplexed by the Government's inability and weakness in grasping the nettle on the Zimbabwean cricket issue and making a specific decision about it? During that debate, we could focus on the #5 billion-a-year pension tax that the Government are imposing on pensioners, which is causing so much hardship to many of them.

Robin Cook: For a moment during that question, time stood still for me. I shall try to disentangle the two separate issues that the hon. Gentleman raises. First, as I said, there is no ground for any confusion whatever about the Government's position in relation to the cricket tour—it is wrong and the team should not go. As I understand it, hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber agree about that. I lament the fact that it is proving so difficult to establish the consensus that I understand exists on both sides of the Chamber.
	On pensioners, I would be delighted to arrange a debate so that we can demonstrate the extent to which the Government have increased the state pension at a much faster rate than that of earnings or inflation, the way in which we have raised 2 million pensioners out of poverty and the fact that, as a result of the introduction of the pension tax credit, there will be a further increase in real income for the less well-off pensioner, who will be about #20 to #30 better off than in 1997. That very substantial achievement would be put entirely at risk by a 20 per cent. cut in public spending—a proposal that I understand the hon. Gentleman supports.

David Chaytor: In view of the well-publicised views of the head of the Church of England, does my right hon. Friend find it unusual that our procedures allow for a debate on the pension fund of the Church of England, but not on its views about war in Iraq? Notwithstanding his reply to the question asked by the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), does he not feel that at the very least, there is a need for a statement about the processes that are to be followed after the publication of the UN weapons inspectors' report, especially given the imminence of the completion of the interim report and its presentation to the Security Council?

Robin Cook: I hear what my hon. Friend says about the Church of England. As my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) identified earlier, I have no personal authority to speak for or on behalf of the Church of England. I am happy, if I may, to leave that for it to absorb.
	On the question of the United Nations inspectors and the statement to the Security Council, the Secretary of State for Defence and the Foreign Secretary have been punctilious in making statements to the House on these matters. I am sure that they will want to ensure that the House is kept fully informed about whatever develops in the Security Council on 27 January. I am confident that they will want to ensure that the House is kept fully up to speed, but at the same time, I counsel us against imagining that 27 January will necessarily be some sort of dramatic watershed. It is a staging post towards a programme of work that will probably have to continue.

David Cameron: Is the Leader of the House aware that, because of the delays in securing parliamentary approval of the financial settlement for local government, many councils, including Oxfordshire, are having difficulties in setting their precepts on time and some councils will not have time to debate the full budgets before they have to do so? Can we have a debate in the House to chivy the Government on that issue? Does the Leader of the House not think it is important that we should look at the size of that stealth tax, which is going to be paid by our constituents, especially as council tax has increased since the Government came to power not by 20 per cent., but by 40 per cent.?

Robin Cook: I remind the hon. Gentleman that we have only just had a debate on the Local Government Bill and that I responded to the demands of the House that we debate the local government settlement in advance. As I am sure he is aware—he is a fair-minded Member of the House—every local authority throughout the length and breadth of England has received a settlement that exceeds the rate of inflation. Over the past few years, we have provided a very substantial additional real-terms increase in local government funding. I am glad that he asked the question in the way that he did, as it gives me the opportunity to say that, if there had been a 20 per cent. cut in public spending, we would have seen cuts in his local authority budget and not an increase.

John Lyons: On the 27th of this month, we will mark Holocaust Memorial day. This year, the event is being held in Edinburgh. May I ask the Leader of House to do two things? First, will he ensure that the House is represented at the event, and, secondly, will he find a way of reflecting such an important day in the business of the House?

Robin Cook: Of course, it was this Government who introduced the Holocaust Memorial day. We did so precisely because that appalling act of genocide should not be forgotten, as part of committing ourselves to ensuring that there is no discrimination in our modern world and because we should never again see such appalling discrimination visited on anybody for any racial, religious or ethnic reason. The Government will therefore want to ensure that we appropriately mark 27 January. I cannot immediately tell my hon. Friend who will be representing the Government at the event, but I shall ensure that he is fully informed. I can assure the House that we will treat the day with appropriate dignity.

Alistair Carmichael: Might I be probably the first hon. Member to wish you, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the House and all hon. Members a very happy old new year for when it comes this weekend? I invite the right hon. Gentleman to join me in sending greetings to my constituents in Foula, which still celebrates the old new year, or Yule, with some vigour.
	I welcome the addition of a fishing debate to next week's business, but what we really need is a statement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I suspect that, as it will be an exercise in reporting back, the fisheries Minister will simply tell us what we already know. What we do not yet know is whether the Government will put their money where their mouth is in supporting the industry, and that question can be answered only by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Robin Cook: I am happy to wish the hon. Gentleman's constituents a happy weekend, in whichever year it falls. I hope that we can achieve unanimity on that proposition.
	On the fishing industry, the fisheries Minister will rightly be speaking in the House next week because he has been heavily engaged in the process. I hope that all hon. Members, from whatever perspective, will recognise that he has been fully committed on the issue, on which he has given very dedicated service. It is therefore right that he should speak for the Government in that debate. Of course, we understand that there will be difficult consequences for communities as a result of the changes and we will seek as best we can to assist those communities, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that there is no future for the fishing communities if there is no future for the fish. That is why we must put conservation at the top of the agenda.

Point of Order

Paul Tyler: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw your attention and that of the Leader of the House to the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell), our Chief Whip, briefed me a few minutes ago that he has been advised by the Clerks that motion 4 on today's Order Paper is defective? Will you use your good offices to make appropriate representations to ensure that the motion is not moved until the mystery is resolved?

Mr. Speaker: The Clerk of the House informs me that he is not aware of that. I therefore have it on good authority that everything is in good order.

BILL PRESENTED

Electricity (Miscellaneous Provisions)

Ms Secretary Hewitt presented a Bill to make provision in connection with the provision of financial assistance to, or the acquisition of any securities of or any part of the undertaking or assets of, British Energy plc or any of its subsidiaries; to provide for the repeal of Part 2 of the Electricity Act 1989; to amend Schedule 12 to that Act and to make provision for undertakings to make grants under that Schedule to be disregarded for tax purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Monday 13 January, and to be printed [Bill 39].

John Bercow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I want to draw your attention to my concern and that of several of my hon. Friends about the possible abuse of the new written ministerial statements procedure. A few moments ago, the Leader of the House invoked as a rationale for it a desire to get rid of the planted written question. Are you conscious that we are worried that, when we have tabled genuine questions—rather than questions planted by Government Back Benchers—instead of receiving substantive replies, Ministers have fobbed us off and patted us on the head with references to the ministerial written statements that they have issued? We are worried that that happens on the same day that our questions should be answered substantively. I ask you, as the guarantor of our rights, to guard against that possible abuse.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is well aware that, as I have stated previously, I am not responsible for the quality of replies, except mine.

Orders of the Day

Health (Wales) Bill

Not amended in the Standing Committee, considered.

New Clause 1
	 — 
	Reciprocity for Patients' Forums

X. The National Assembly for Wales shall make regulations providing that Patients' Forums in England shall have the power to investigate health issues in Wales that affect patients resident in England who are treated by the National Health Service in Wales."—[Mr. Evans.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Nigel Evans: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this we may discuss amendment No. 4, Title, line 1, after XWales;" insert
	Xto make provision for reciprocity for Patients' Forums in England;".

Nigel Evans: The new clause is straightforward, and I am sure that the Minister appreciates that there is a problem that needs to be tackled. If it is not done through the new clause, I hope that it will be properly addressed in another place so that patients forums can cover anyone living in England who wants to receive treatment in Wales. The new clause stems from the purpose of community health councils, the patients' champion. If CHCs in Wales cannot investigate any complaints on behalf of patients who come from England or elsewhere, a problem will arise. Perhaps the issue also relates to people from England or Wales who receive treatment in France or Spain because of the spare capacity there and the extended waiting lists in Wales and England. There is therefore a wider problem. However, I assume that CHCs in Wales could champion Welsh patients in, for example, French hospitals, and deal with any problems that arose.
	Patients are increasingly aware of their rights and know that any complaints should be heard. For example, complaints against doctors have increased by 1,450 per cent. in the past 11 years. That is staggering, and reflects the fact that people know that a procedure exists if problems arise and they are unhappy with their treatment.
	We are not simply considering people who live in border areas and decide to be treated in the NHS in Wales. International and domestic tourism has expanded greatly. Wales, especially north, west and mid-Wales, receives many tourists from England who make regular weekend, mid-week and lengthier summer visits to some of its most beautiful parts. Sadly, some of them will become ill or suffer accidents, especially on beaches. For example, people who visit the Gower peninsula could cut their feet on glass that has been left on the beaches. I know of cases of people being taken to Singleton hospital or Morriston hospital. The increase in tourism means that people from England will be treated in Welsh hospitals.
	The growth of business travel means that people on business who become ill or have accidents will use the NHS in Wales, as will people who drive through Wales and have car accidents. It is therefore right to establish a structure to ensure that people are properly looked after and complaints investigated. That has not been thought through in the Bill. I believe that it is an oversight and I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure me about that.
	People whose families live in Wales may wish to be near them if they need an operation or treatment. People are increasingly mobile and we want reciprocity whereby patients forums in England or CHCs in Wales can champion the rights of patients from England or elsewhere who are treated by the NHS in Wales. That matter needs consideration.
	It is depressing that waiting lists in Wales have increased. Community health councils will be interested in that and may want to investigate instances of patients from elsewhere who are treated in Welsh hospitals. We know that there are huge cost implications.
	Let us consider the position of someone who has diabetes and travels to Wales. Today, the Government produced a new strategy for diabetes in England, but it will take a further 12 months to introduce it in Wales. I am unhappy about that, and I hope that the Welsh Assembly can introduce a strategy for Wales more quickly. I do not understand why people in Wales are treated as second-class citizens and I hope that the Minister can reassure me.
	In the context of increasing waiting lists, I hope that the Minister can comment on the story in The Western Mail about calling up reservists for Iraq. Some of the 1,500 will be Welsh doctors and nurses. If that leads to increasing waiting lists, the CHCs will want to investigate the matter. I hope that the Minister will reassure us that there are contingency plans to ensure that patients in Wales are properly treated.
	The new clause is straightforward and covers a matter that the Bill does not tackle. The mobility of people throughout the United Kingdom and the world means that we need to ensure that the rights of those who receive medical treatment in the NHS in Wales are properly championed, whether by CHCs or the patients forums in England.

Don Touhig: I am happy to assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government share his wish that patients forums in England should have the same rights that the Bill will allow the Assembly to confer on community health councils in Wales. I am also happy to be able to tell him that it is unnecessary to amend the Bill to achieve that. The functions of a patients forum are set out in section 15 of the National Health Service and Health Care Professions Act 2002. The main functions are monitoring and reporting, and include the duty to
	Xmonitor and review the range and operation of services provided by . . . the trust for which it is established; . . . obtain the views of patients and carers . . . and report to the trust; . . . provide advice, and make reports and recommendations"
	on service-related matters and make information available to patients and carers.
	Patients forums have no powers to investigate health issues in England. Those powers are exercised in England and Wales by the Commission for Health Improvement, which was set up in April 2000. New clause 1 and amendment No. 4 would duplicate the commission's powers in Wales by conferring them additionally on patients forums, which operate only in England. The Assembly would not be in a position to make regulations affecting the operation of the patients forums in England because it has no responsibility for them.
	The inspection of premises providing NHS-funded services, including the inspection of premises across borders, is a different matter. Section 17 of the 2002 Act, and paragraph 3 of schedule 7A of this Bill give the Secretary of State and the National Assembly respectively identical powers to make regulations conferring on patients forums and community health councils the right of entry and inspection to back up their functions. That is not intended to make them investigatory bodies because that is a role for the Commission for Health Improvement. CHCs will have the same right of entry as patients forums in England.

Nigel Evans: If someone from Bristol were holidaying in Swansea and became ill there, who would they complain to in the first instance, and how would that complaint be followed through?

Don Touhig: In the first instance, if the person lived in England and had a problem with the way in which they had been treated by the health service in Wales, they would complain to their patients forum, which would then have the opportunity under the provisions of the NHS Reform and Health Care Professions Act to investigate the complaint, even though the treatment had taken place in Wales. That is what we are putting right in this Bill: we are providing a reciprocal arrangement for community health councils in Wales to have the opportunity to do the same thing for England.

John Bercow: The hon. Gentleman refers to the power to make regulations contained in paragraph 3 of schedule 7A. I shall pose to him the question that is invariably of interest to me in such contexts. Are the regulations that are to be made under that schedule to be subject to the negative procedure of the House or to its affirmative counterpart?

Don Touhig: Where there are regulations relating to aspects of this Bill, they will be made by the Assembly under its proper procedures as a result of the Government of Wales Act 1998. They will not be made by this House. I hope that that helps the hon. Gentleman.
	As I was saying, it is not intended that patients forums or CHCs should be investigatory bodies. CHCs will have the same right of entry as patients forums in England, and if a situation arises in which a Welsh CHC wished to inspect facilities in England used by Welsh patients, it will be able to do so—and vice versa. Patients forums will have identical powers to do the same in respect of premises in Wales used by residents of England.
	In practice, we would expect that a CHC or a patients forum that wished to conduct an inspection across the border would liaise with its English or Welsh counterpart for it to conduct the inspection on its behalf. That seems practical. The situation is not, however, prescribed in any more detail, as it will be for local CHCs and patients forums to work up the arrangement that is best suited to them. I hope that that explanation will help the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) to understand why we would resist the new clause.
	The hon. Gentleman made a number of other important points in his speech. He asked about someone from this country being treated abroad and perhaps being dissatisfied with that treatment. The first line of defence for that patient's interests would be his or her CHC in Wales, or patients forum in England. The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the diabetes strategy, and asked about related proposals for Wales. My colleagues in the Assembly are considering such proposals in Wales, and I am sure that they will take note of his point about the need to do it as speedily as possible.
	The hon. Gentleman also referred to waiting times. The Assembly has made substantial progress in reducing waiting times in the priority areas of cardiac surgery and orthopaedics over the last year. There has also been an indisputable increase in the number of people being treated. A lot of work is under way to address the continuing problem of long waiting lists, which we are all concerned about, and the piloting of a new booking system for out-patients has shown reductions in cancellations and non-attendance from more than 15 per cent. to less than 5 per cent. The improved system will be rolled out right across Wales from March this year. I hope that that helps the hon. Gentleman so far as the action on waiting lists is concerned and that he will feel able to withdraw the new clause.

Nigel Evans: I am reassured by the explanation given by the Minister. I also welcome his comments about diabetes. I hope that—perhaps with some pushing from him—the Assembly will concentrate on introducing a strategy for those who suffer from diabetes in Wales. He made no reference to the issue of reservists, or to whether contingency plans would be put in place to ensure that patients in Wales would be properly looked after should there be a war with Iraq. Even with the reservists being called up, there could well be a problem.

Don Touhig: I take note of what the hon. Gentleman is saying. I am sure that his view is shared on both sides of the House, and I shall make sure that it is brought to the attention of my colleague, the Assembly Minister for Health and Social Services, Jane Hutt.

Nigel Evans: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
	Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2
	 — 
	Wales Centre for Health

Chris Grayling: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 13 at end insert—
	'( ) The Special Health Authority for England and Wales responsible for the functions of the Health Protection Agency shall have a place on the Board of the Wales Centre for Health.'.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 3, in page 2, line 24 [Clause 3], at end insert—
	'( ) That the Wales Centre for Health shall have a duty to coordinate its activities with the recommendations of the Special Health Authority for England and Wales responsible for the functions of the Health Protection Agency in matters related to communicable disease control in England as well as with similar functions controlled by the NHS in Wales.'.

Chris Grayling: We have tabled the amendments to highlight an issue that should be a matter of concern for everyone in the House at what is undoubtedly a difficult time in security terms, and also because security matters are not the sole issues involved in the relationship between the health protection agency and the Wales centre for health. There is also the issue of how matters relating to communicable disease are addressed and communicated, and how public information on these matters is provided.
	These are probing amendments designed to establish the relationship envisaged by the Minister between the Wales centre for health and the health protection agency. The latter organisation covers England and Wales but does not have the full remit in Wales that it does in England. The former will, if we understand its role correctly, have prime responsibility for the communication of public health information to the people of Wales. The Minister may be able to clarify the degree to which he envisages the Wales centre for health having responsibility for communication in those areas. The Bill states that the centre will be responsible for developing and maintaining
	Xarrangements for making information about matters related to the protection and improvement of health in Wales available to the public in Wales".
	It will also have responsibility for research and training, both of which could be equally important in the current climate.
	This is happening at a time of change for the infrastructure for the establishment of information—and, in part, for the provision of information—about communicable diseases and also, in these difficult times, about biological and chemical threats to this country. These functions were previously carried out by the Public Health Laboratory Service for England and Wales, and are in the process of being radically changed. Over the next few months, we shall see the creation of an entirely new organisation, the health protection agency, which will take over the responsibilities of the PHLS and a number of other bodies. It will be created as a special health authority and, from April, take on responsibility for providing or commissioning most of the NHS functions set out in the Government's consultation paper last year.
	The organisation will be responsible in England for PHLS roles, but not, in general, clinical diagnostic microbiology services. However, it will be responsible for microbiological research and take over the national focus for chemical incidents, regional services and the National Poisons Information Service. It will also take over the health protection functions provided by consultants in communicable disease control and other health protection staff. Furthermore, it will have a role in providing advice on emergency functions.
	In Wales, the organisation will also have many of those responsibilities, but not all of them. It will not be responsible for certain consultancy work, but it will, none the less, be the body that generates first-base information on major communicable disease risks and major biological and chemical risks.
	This week, we have seen the first example of a chemical threat being discovered in this country. The PHLS has been predominantly responsible for providing information to the public indirectly and to the NHS directly on the nature of that threat, on what treatments are available, if any, and on how medical practitioners should try to identify the possible appearance of symptoms that ultimately might represent a chemical or biological attack on or threat to this country.
	After 1 April, the HPA will be responsible for such tasks. It will be at the heart of our security apparatus in defending this country and providing information to practitioners and the public on the risks that we might face. Therefore, as we consider the Bill and set in place new structures in Wales for public health information, it is fundamentally important that we understand the relationship between the HPA and the new bodies, especially the Wales centre for health.

Julian Lewis: I support the argument that my hon. Friend is making. Will he accept from me the assurance that terrorist groups always try to think one jump ahead? Given that so much has been said in anticipation of a terrorist attack on London as the capital of the United Kingdom, terrorists thinking one jump ahead may be considering the capitals of Scotland and of the Principality precisely to take us by surprise. Is not that a particular reason for bodies in Scotland and in Wales having the extra representation for which he is arguing?

Chris Grayling: I thank my hon. Friend for those comments, because he is driving at the nub of the reason for our laying the amendments on the Table for, I hope, the Minister's acceptance. I certainly hope that he addresses the issue and responds with his own thoughts on the different ways in which those organisations will interact. Ultimately, in the eyes of the terrorists who are threatening us, we are one United Kingdom and one nation. Terrorists will not respect administrative or national boundaries within the UK, so we must work effectively together.
	We have a concern: in creating those structures through the Bill and in creating the Wales centre for health, we want to ensure that the centre has proper links with the organisations that will provide the rest of the NHS in England with the information, training, support and guidance that it requires to do its job properly.
	That is the purpose of the amendments that we have introduced. We want to formalise the relationship between the Wales centre for health and the new body to ensure that there is absolute co-ordination between all those people who are responsible for establishing and communicating information on those important issues. In our view, it is particularly important that those arrangements be dealt with because of the uncertainties surrounding the restructuring of the PHLS, the creation of the HPA and the changes in this area as to the organisations being transferred from the PHLS to the NHS.
	The debate takes place as those organisations are going through a huge process of change that is enormously disruptive to them. We must be mindful of the warning given by the PHLS internal risk assessment team on the implications of the changes:
	XIt seems inevitable that if the timetable of 1st April 2003 for the HPA is to be delivered, some level of risk will have to be tolerated. Were there to be a severe external challenge over the next few months, such as deliberate release, the situation and expected forward timetable would need rapid reappraisal."
	I hope that the Minister's colleagues in the Department of Health are taking on board that warning, which has implications for Wales and for those who are taking over responsibility for some areas that the PHLS covers in the Welsh NHS. Those responsible for the Wales centre for health also need to be mindful of it, given the responsibility that they will undoubtedly have for making information available to the public on health issues that we all could face in the months and years ahead.
	That information, which will originate from the HPA and our central scientific teams, must be disseminated effectively and quickly right across the NHS in England and in Wales. Our first amendment is one suggestion as to how we could strengthen and formalise those ties, ensuring that they are clearly in place during the period of transition for all those organisations and that they solidify as they go forward.
	The PHLS drives the dissemination of information on communicable diseases and chemical weapons, and the HPA will take that over. Do we not need to ensure that those organisations are interlocked? What better way to achieve that than to offer the HPA a non-executive role on the board of the Wales centre for health, so that there is a genuine voice for our scientists and technical experts in the arena where communication and training will be formulated and delivered?
	That is the objective of our first amendment. I hope that the Minister gives it due consideration, but, if he feels unable to adopt such an approach, will he none the less consider the direction in which we are attempting to steer him? Will he also consider how to ensure strong linkage between the two, and ensure that the scientists have a strong voice in the work of the Wales centre for health in shaping communication and training?
	Our second amendment is designed to formalise a duty of partnership, especially as organisations will be going through difficult changes. It is all too easy for them to miss out working together and to focus on internal issues rather than ensuring that they work in the partnerships that we all need for the future. Our proposal is designed to ensure that there would be a duty on them to do so. It would provide direction for them and act as a reminder from Parliament that the nation needs them to operate in tandem.
	The issue does not simply involve security, although at this time security must be a paramount consideration. If there is a chemical or a biological risk, we must ensure that information and training flows right the way through our health services, quickly and effectively, and on to the public as and when they need it. However, the PHLS has played an active and important role in other areas, which, in future, will be played by the HPA. Examples are disseminating information on the spread of methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus in our hospitals—hospital-related infections and how they can be tackled—and providing information on winter vomiting disease, which is at the forefront of consideration in the health world, as well as other diseases that may be isolated, such as Legionnaire's disease. They may, like a flu epidemic, spread much more widely.
	The information that the HPA produces will be of paramount importance to medical practitioners and patients alike. We are asking the Minister to create a duty of care on the Wales centre for health that says, XYou're not simply there to serve the people of Wales. You're also there to be part of a partnership within the United Kingdom to ensure that we provide proper and effective information across our borders, throughout our nation and to all our people." We are one United Kingdom. The Bill is creating institutions that will serve the people of Wales. They must do that not in isolation, but in partnership with their counterparts elsewhere in the UK and organisations with a remit for the whole UK. The amendments are designed to suggest simple structures and duties that would enable them to do that—indeed, would ensure that they did it. They are designed to convey a sense of direction to the organisations. I hope that the Minister will give due consideration to our ambitions, and that, if he is not willing to accept the amendments in their present form, he will ensure that the partnership we need—in the context of communicable diseases, but particularly in the context of security issues—between our scientists and our information providers is strong, effective and structured.

Julie Morgan: I know that amendment No. 2 is a probing amendment, and it raises important issues, but I think both amendments should be resisted, because I feel that requiring a place on the board to be given to the Wales centre for health is too prescriptive at this stage. I feel that the Assembly should have maximum flexibility to decide which organisations should have places.

Julian Lewis: I thank the hon. Lady for giving way, with typical courtesy. Surely she recognises, however, that a terrorist chemical or biological weapons threat would require a national lead from central Government? Does she not agree that if any subject under the sun requires such a lead, it is that subject?

Julie Morgan: The hon. Gentleman is making important points sincerely, but I do not think that the Welsh body we are creating should be compelled to liaise with another body. Moreover, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), the arrangements in Wales differ from those in England. The Assembly will retain some responsibility for emergency planning.

John Bercow: The hon. Lady does not think that the special health authority for England and Wales should have a representative on the board of the Wales centre for health. Does she think that the board of the Wales centre for health should have a specific and designated representative on the special health authority for England and Wales?

Julie Morgan: I do not think that that should be decided here. I think it should be decided by the Wales centre for health.

Roger Williams: I welcome the tone of these Conservative amendments more than that of those tabled in Committee, because they show enthusiasm for working together rather than pulling apart. In my view and that of my party, devolution is not about separation and isolation but about maximising the contribution that each nation—such as Wales or Scotland—and each English region can make to the whole. But the arguments of the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) in Committee often depended on a worst-case scenario, and I feel that the case he has advanced today for an English appointee does the same.

Chris Grayling: The hon. Gentleman knows, surely, that the health protection agency will cover England and Wales. There is no reason to assume that the HPA representative on the board must be English, as Welsh people will of course be involved in the organisation. This is much more about solidifying the links between the organisations than about trying to involve England in Wales.

Roger Williams: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but I do not think any of us thought, on first seeing the Bill, that the primary purpose of the Wales centre for health would be to deal with terrorist threats—although of course I accept that terrorism is now a key issue, which we should all address. I feel that using a worst-case scenario as a basis for legislation will so constrain the nature of that legislation that it will be unsympathetic to devolution, and the right of the Welsh people and the Welsh Assembly to look after their own affairs.
	Although I welcome the tone of the amendments and accept the points made by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell, I do not think the hon. Gentleman's aims will necessarily be achieved by changes in the legislation. They could, I think, be achieved by good practice and the building up of partnerships that would work in actuality rather than on the pages of a Bill.

Don Touhig: The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) said that these were probing amendments. Amendment No. 2 would insert the words
	XThe Special Health Authority for England and Wales responsible for the functions of the Health Protection Agency shall have a place on the Board of the Wales Centre for Health".
	The special health authority, of course, does not yet exist. We intend to set it up in April 2003, using secondary legislation under section 11 of the National Health Service Act 1977, as an interim step pending the establishment of the health protection agency. We intend it to be a non-departmental public body, although that will depend on the availability of legislative time.
	It would be inappropriate to give a body that does not exist, and will in any case cease to exist as soon as the HPA is established, a place on the board of the Wales centre for health, or to require the centre to co-ordinate its activities with those of such a body. Surely giving the centre a duty to co-ordinate its activities with the recommendations of the interim body, or those of the HPA when it is established, would be incompatible with a requirement to ensure its independence.
	The outcome of the pre-legislative scrutiny supported our intention that the centre should act independently, as Conservative Members pointed out in Committee. It could not act independently if required to co-ordinate its activities with the recommendations of the HPA. There would be no equivalent requirement for the HPA to co-ordinate its activities with those of the centre. It would also be inconsistent to require the centre to co-ordinate its activities with those of a body outside Wales, in the absence of a similar duty for it to co-ordinate its activities with those of relevant public sector bodies in Wales. And why should the HPA have a right to representation on the board of the Wales centre when bodies in Wales will have no such right?
	The Assembly intends members of the centre to be appointed on the basis of their expertise and experience, and to be drawn from the statutory, voluntary and academic sectors in Wales. Amendment No. 2 runs counter to that intention. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) that it would introduce a prescriptive and inflexible approach to a detailed issue. We intend the Assembly to determine the matter, under schedule 2(10)(a). I can reassure Members, however, that the Wales centre for health will not duplicate the expertise that the HPA will provide in Wales.

Julian Lewis: I do not think that people are worried about the Welsh body duplicating the work of the national body. What worries them, I think, is the possibility that the Welsh body will not consider the role of the national body sufficiently. It is, surely, a crucial defence role, albeit a civil and domestic defence role. It makes no more sense for the Welsh Assembly to consider the work of a body with a national defence role of that sort than for it to consider other important aspects of defence policy and say, XThese should be a matter for us". Surely the Minister can see that we are discussing an overall national danger, and that national defence measures are therefore required.

Don Touhig: I hope that the remarks that I am about to make will reassure the hon. Gentleman so far as that point is concerned. We need to distinguish between the roles of the Wales centre for health and of the health protection agency. The HPA will bring together specialist expertise at a UK level against microbiologicial, chemical and radiological hazards, and terrorist threats. The WCH is in support of public health in Wales, so the two bodies have two distinct roles.
	The time to discuss the relationship of the HPA with other bodies, including those in Wales, will come when the proposals for establishing it appear before this House. The functions of the HPA in Wales will be fully explained at that time, but if it helps hon. Members I can say now that we do not intend the functions of the HPA in Wales to include all those that it will have in England. As I said, it is intended that, once established, the HPA will provide services and expertise in areas of microbiological, radiological and chemical hazards. I hope that reassures the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell in respect of the point that he made in his opening remarks.

Chris Grayling: If there were evidence of a biological attack in this country and of the possible spread of a communicable disease, would the WCH have any role in providing the public with information about that disease?

Don Touhig: I do not think that we want the legislation to prevent the WCH from providing any information to any national body such as the HPA, if that were thought appropriate. I see no reason why the WCH should not do that if it has something to contribute, but we need to understand the two separate roles of the HPA and the WCH.

Julian Lewis: We are getting to the heart of the matter. The Minister is saying that the WCH would not be prohibited from contributing, but the amendment would ensure that the WCH could contribute, make useful statements and enable important measures to be taken in the event of a terrible attack of this sort. He is not really reassuring us that, without the representation for which the amendment argues, the new body in Wales will be able to take effective action in the event of a terrorist attack.

Don Touhig: Perhaps I should again make it clear that the bodies have two separate roles. The HPA will bring together specialist expertise at a UK level against microbiological, chemical and radiological hazards and terrorist threats. The WCH is in support of public health in Wales. I cannot see for the life of me how putting a representative on the board of the WCH would in any way guarantee that any information that WCH wanted to contribute would automatically be contributed. I have no doubt that, if the WCH wanted to make a contribution, it would be able to do so through proper collaboration—which will come—between the two bodies.
	As I said, the functions of the HPA in Wales will be fully explained when we present that information to the House. When it is established, it is intended that the HPA will provide services and expertise across the range of hazards that I have described: microbiological, radiological, chemical and so on. This information is currently—

John Bercow: There seems little doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) and I are inadvertently proving to be pestilential nuisances to the Minister, but I am bound to tell him that that is part of our parliamentary responsibility. In answering my hon. Friend a moment ago, the Minister said that the presence of a representative of the special health authority for England and Wales on the board of the WCH would not change the balance of powers, and that is accepted. However, I put it to him in all fairness that the presence of such a representative might usefully serve the purpose of sensitising the WCH to the importance of its communications responsibilities in circumstances of the kind that my hon. Friend has helpfully outlined.

Don Touhig: Perhaps we will discuss communications when we debate the next group of amendments. In fact, the hon. Gentleman's party is trying to prevent such communications in tabling those amendments, so perhaps we should leave that issue until we have that debate.
	The work that the HPA will carry out in the areas I have mentioned is currently undertaken by the board of the Public Health Laboratory Service, the National Radiological Protection Board and the national focus for chemical incidents. However, field services that the HPA will provide in England—health protection functions that are provided by consultants in communicable disease control—will be provided by the national public health service in Wales. Emergency planning in Wales will remain the responsibility of the National Assembly. So because the functions of the HPA will be different in Wales, it is essential that arrangements for co-ordination with bodies that provide these services in Wales are sufficiently flexible. The HPA will need arrangements with a range of public health bodies, and as I have already said, it cannot achieve this simply by having a place on the board of the WCH.
	The HPA will need to have relationships with the national public health service and the Assembly in order to carry out its functions. Those relationships will be most appropriately set out in agreements, which will come when we introduce proposals for the HPA. Settling these relationships by agreement, rather than introducing inflexible duties in the manner of the amendment, will provide the flexibility to meet changing circumstances and to make organisational arrangements, which will be put in place when necessary.
	The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell said that these are probing amendments, and I hope that I have managed to deal with the points that he and his hon. Friends raised.

Chris Grayling: rose—

Don Touhig: I am not at all concerned by the hon. Gentleman's rising; each time, I swat away such contributions like flies.

Chris Grayling: I have to say that that was not the Minister at his best—I know that he can do better. He has not addressed what is a pretty important issue at the moment, and it is clear that he was reading the brief prepared for him earlier. His response concerned the technical issues, rather than the actual ambition of protecting the people of Wales. He said that the HPA will be formed from 1 April, but I should remind him that that is two and a half months away. If the Government are incapable of synchronising a sensible measure in this Bill with one that will be in place by 1 April, they are even less competent than I thought. The Minister talked about legislation that will eventually be put in place to set up the HPA, but the reality is that there is no guarantee whatsoever about when that will happen. A loose and vague promise for the eventual introduction of a formal measure has been made, subject to the legislative timetable.
	The Minister also talked about the independence of the WCH, but I do not believe that it can act in isolation on this issue. If I am not mistaken, we are still one United Kingdom, facing the threat of terrorism and disease. Wales is not becoming an independent country through devolution; we are working together and we need to work together. This issue needs to be about partnership, and to be frank I found the Minister's reference to not wanting Welsh bodies to have a duty to work with English bodies rather reprehensible.
	The key issue behind the amendment—

Don Touhig: I did not in any way suggest that those bodies should not work together; I said that if the WCH had any contribution to make to the HPA, it would obviously want to do so and should be allowed to do so.

Chris Grayling: The Minister specifically said that, if the amendment were accepted, the WCH would be accountable to an English body in a way that it would not to bodies in Wales, but I would argue that that is simply not true. The HPA is an England and Wales body with a duty to protect our people, and to deliver the scientific expertise that will enable our health service better to protect our people, and that will enable people better to prepare for unforeseen eventualities. In that situation, surely the role of the organisation with prime responsibility for training and communication in Wales would not be affected adversely in any way by a concept that would put a scientific expert on to its board. That is all that the first amendment in this group seeks to achieve.
	The hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) wants to leave these matters to the Welsh Assembly, but they are not solely Welsh matters. Terrorists will strike, and that will affect us all. We cannot act in isolation. Diseases such as MRSA or tuberculosis will affect the whole country; they will not stop at borders.

Julie Morgan: There is general agreement that the hon. Gentleman is dealing with matters about which we are all concerned. However, we object to the amendment because of its implementation proposals, not because of the important matters with which it deals

Chris Grayling: I am grateful for that remark. It is all the more disappointing, therefore, that the amendment has not sparked a debate and caused the Minister to suggest different approaches. Instead, we have merely been told that the ideas are not relevant. If the Minister will say how he will structure the relationship covered by the amendment, we will be happy to treat it as a probing amendment, as originally intended. However, our public laboratory system and health protection infrastructure are in a state of flux and the new organisation is being set up at a time of threat and risk. We need to understand now what the Government are planning, not when an incident occurs in the future.

Don Touhig: I am trying to make it clear that the HPA will be a national body. It will tackle the threats—from microbiological attack, chemical and radiological weapons and other hazards, such as terrorism and so on—about which the hon. Gentleman is so worried. The WCH will not have that function; its role will be to support public health in Wales. The two bodies will collaborate closely. When the HPA is established, it will set up a series of structures through which it will collaborate with the WCH. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the overall responsibility for meeting the threats that he has described will rest with the HPA—the UK body that will take responsibility for such matters.

Chris Grayling: The Minister said a moment ago that the WCH could—and probably should—play an active role in telling the people of Wales about risks, and in dealing with those risks. We believe that it should play an active role in helping to train medical practitioners and health service personnel to deal with threats arising from terrorist sources or from outbreaks of communicable disease. The WCH and the HPA should be closely linked. It is logical for the House to ensure that the two groups—scientists, and communicators and trainers—should work together.

Don Touhig: The Government intend that the two bodies will work closely together and be complementary. The hon. Gentleman has argued that we all belong to one country, the UK, and that we need a single approach to the threats that we face, from terrorists and elsewhere. Now he suggests that the WCH should have a role in training people to deal with those threats. That role more properly belongs to the HPA, as he will understand when it is established.

Chris Grayling: I refer the Minister to clause 3((1)(c), which states that one of the functions of the WCH will be to
	Xcontribute to the provision and development of training".
	The WCH will therefore be the leader in delivering public health information in Wales. It also will play an active role in providing the necessary support training in relation to that information. Surely it should therefore work hand in glove with the scientists who deliver information about communicable diseases and about security risks? I do not understand why the Minister resists establishing a duty for the WCH to work in partnership with the national HPA. That would be a signal from the House at a time when this country faces real risks.
	We are not asking the WCH to do anything specific: we are saying that the national Parliament expects the WCH to work with the national organisation that provides the scientific expertise on which the WCH will base much of its information. That would be its duty. We accept that there will be difficulties as the WCH establishes itself, and as the HPA goes through significant changes, but why is it inappropriate for the House to expect the two bodies to work in partnership?
	We want to ensure that the people of Wales are not disadvantaged by the creation of separate bodies outside the structures of the NHS. Wales is not becoming an independent country. In respect of both terrorism and diseases, its people must still receive the same quality of service and remain linked to the national expertise enjoyed by people in England.
	I assure the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) that we are as concerned about the threat from communicable diseases as we are about the threat from terrorists. The hon. Gentleman said that Conservative Members have been inclined to look at the worst case when considering this Bill. However, given that chemicals that can be used as weapons have been discovered in the hands of terrorists in this country, I will take no lectures about not focusing on the worst case. It would be irresponsible of the House not to look at and cater for the worst case. We must make minor improvements to the Bill to strengthen the links between our scientists and the people who have to communicate the scientists' work.
	I have been monumentally unimpressed by the Minister's response to the amendment. I hoped that he would say that the amendments were not quite right, but that he would take them in the spirit in which they were tabled and come back with his own ideas to ensure that the WCH and HPA work together. His response was inadequate, and I therefore intend to press the amendment to a Division. We need to make the point that the matter is too important not to be taken seriously.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	The House divided: Ayes 78, Noes 305.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 3
	 — 
	Functions of the Centre

Nigel Evans: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 21, at end insert—
	'provided that it shall not use media channels widely accessible in any area outside Wales for the communication of such information unless that information is communicated jointly with those public information bodies responsible for the communication of health information in that area;'.
	Obviously, I am disappointed that we did not win the vote on amendment No. 2. I must wholly disagree with the comment of my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) that the Minister was not at his best during the wind-up to the debate: we have never seen the Minister at his best, so I do not understand how my hon. Friend could arrive at that judgment. However, we shall move on.
	Amendment No. 1 is straightforward; it relates to the promotional activities with which the Wales centre for health will be involved. We are not dealing at this stage with its role in research or the development of training.
	Clause 3 provides that:
	XThe Wales Centre for Health must...develop and maintain arrangements for making information about matters related to the protection and improvement of health in Wales available to the public in Wales."
	Our amendment would add the words
	Xprovided that it shall not use media channels widely accessible in any area outside Wales for the communication of such information unless that information is communicated jointly with those public information bodies responsible for the communication of health information in that area".
	That is a common-sense amendment.
	In many ways, the amendment builds on the Minister's earlier suggestion that, in practice, the WCH will work with several other organisations, even though that is not specified in the Bill. The Minister will remember that, in Committee, we tried to include a provision that would force the centre to work with similar bodies elsewhere in some of its campaigns. The amendment would do that, in another guise, inasmuch as we recognise that once the WCH is properly and fully established, it may embark on television campaigns that impinge on people outside Wales.
	As we know, a considerable number of people in Wales—north and south—turn their aerials away from Welsh television stations for all sorts of reasons. People living in north Wales who were born in England may be more interested in what Granada has to offer, or people in parts of south Wales may point their aerials in the direction of Westcountry television, which is owned by Carlton, rather than watching domestic Welsh services.
	The Wales centre for health might embark on a campaign of precautions and warnings against smoking—something that we would all welcome. We know that obesity is a problem, so the centre might launch a campaign for better eating habits, perhaps coupled with the promotion of health exercise. Again, we would support that, especially if the campaign was targeted on people who were vulnerable to those problems.
	I do not think that there would be a great problem if such advertisements were broadcast on HTV Wales and also seen by people in Bristol who can receive that channel. However, there might be other campaigns where we should want the centre to collaborate with other bodies and co-ordinate its work with them. That is only common sense.
	In Swansea, for example, there is a problem in getting mums and dads to take up the MMR inoculation for their children. Several GPs are so worried about that lack of take-up that they fear that there will be an outbreak of disease. The centre could set up a campaign targeted on the Swansea area, or even nationally throughout Wales. There might be no problem in doing that, but it might run counter to messages coming from England.
	One of the beauties or strengths of devolution—so we are told—is that there can be policy differentiation between Wales and England if that is what Wales wants. For example, England already has a diabetes strategy, but Wales is still waiting for one. I am bewildered by that decision and hope that the Government will get on with a proper diabetes strategy for the whole United Kingdom and that all organisations will work together to ensure that it is sensible.
	However, the situation could be reversed: Wales might have a strategy on something while England did not. If there was an advertising campaign in Wales on the issue, some English residents might think that it was also English health policy. Such differentiation in policy might not be a strength—it could cause confusion.
	Confusion can also arise when we hear references to the XHealth Minister", because, as hon. Members know, the title XSecretary" in the National Assembly for Wales has been replaced by that of XMinister". When that job title is mentioned people do not know whether it means the UK Minister or the Welsh or Scottish one.

Jon Owen Jones: Surely, the diabetes strategy is an example of devolution working well. It was not an English initiative but a Scottish one. England took it up and Wales will do so later on.

Nigel Evans: I do not dispute the fact that the strategy started in Scotland and that it followed in England. The question that I want to stress is why Wales is last. People in Wales who suffer from diabetes have been pushing hard for such a strategy; indeed, even in England we waited too long for its implementation.
	There is huge confusion even about simple things, such as the roles of county councillors, MPs and MEPS. We do not know who does what. We are trying to bring back some sanity and coherence. That is what the amendment is about.
	There is a problem with flu jabs, for example. Due to the recent cold snap, one hospital in Wales stopped all non-emergency operations until February to tackle the problem. Although we would endorse a campaign to encourage more people to take up flu jabs, we also know that in some areas doctors have run out of vaccine in the past. A campaign might be initiated in one part of the country but seen on television in another area where no vaccine was available. That would be a gross waste of time and extremely inefficient.

Bill Wiggin: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would cause huge frustration if people saw on television that they are supposed to get themselves inoculated against flu but when they turned up at their local GP surgery they found that there was no vaccine? There are already far too many attacks on people who work in the health service. Such campaigns could increase frustration with NHS staff, even though they were incapable of carrying out inoculations due to the lack of vaccine. The amendment would prevent such dilemmas.

Nigel Evans: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point. The frustration would be worse if people were told in a television campaign to go to their surgery, only to find when they did so that there was no vaccine. That has happened in the past, so we are not even talking about a worst-case scenario.
	If we can get everyone to work together on such matters it would be not only efficient, but would also save money. As we have said in the past, the duplication of television campaigns can be hugely expensive. Of course, I can almost read the Minister's mind as he sits on the Treasury Bench. He thinks that everything will be wonderful and that everyone will work together in their best interests. We have heard it all before, but we want such things to be stated in the Bill to ensure good practice, for goodness' sake. Much of the Bill is common sense in many ways—for example, some of the requirements that the Wales centre for health will be asked to meet—but we still think that it should be stated in the Bill none the less. That is what we are trying to do with the amendment.

Wayne David: The amendment says that the Wales centre for health
	Xshall not use media channels widely accessible in the any area outside Wales",
	but how wide is wide? Are we talking about 2 or 202 square miles? The amendment must be precise; otherwise it is meaningless.

Nigel Evans: The hon. Gentleman quotes only part of the amendment, which goes on to say that the proposal should apply unless the centre is in dialogue with its sister bodies in England. We are trying to make that dialogue the norm, so that such problems would not arise.
	There are various ways in which the centre should try to get its message across. For example, it could use regional newspapers. There are several very good daily morning and evening newspapers and even weekly newspapers in Wales, and they get their message across. Using the South Wales Evening Post would be a perfect way to get the message on MMR across, especially in areas that face the problem, such as Swansea. There would be no problem in doing that, and I suspect that it would be far more cost-efficient.
	The use of television is the main problem because it does not respect boundaries, as has been rightly said. Many people could receive pictures from elsewhere. Of course, with digital television, people living in England can receive Welsh television, and vice versa. Satellite television, the internet and e-mails could be used, and I am sure that there is even a role for texting on telephones. All those things have to be considered.
	We feel very strong about this issue. Although we failed in Committee when we tried to get those bodies to work together to achieve coherence and joined-up thinking, the campaigning aspect for the Wales centre for health will be vital. I can imagine that Members of Parliament will get in touch with the centre, saying XThis is a particular health problem in my area. Please will you look into it, and do some research and campaigning on it?" That would be a perfect and appropriate role for Members of Parliament, but, surely, given the limited amount of money that the Wales centre for health will have at its disposal, we want to ensure that it at least talks properly to similar organisations elsewhere.
	We want to ensure that the campaigns are properly costed, work together and are rolled out where appropriate, so that we can save money and be far more efficient than if we leave things as they are and simply pray that the bodies will talk to one another and work together. Why do we leave that to chance? Let us include such things in the Bill and ensure coherence.

Hywel Williams: I would not want to disappoint the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), but I also believe in co-operation between health promotion bodies in Wales and those in England. After all, disease does not respect national boundaries, or any other boundary for that matter. However, I wish to point out some of the problems to which he has already alluded, as well as those that arise from the fact that the amendment uses the words,
	Xshall not use media channels widely available accessible...unless that information is communicated jointly".
	Let us consider the media channels available. The hon. Gentleman has already referred to television. However, I contend that the amendment would constrain the Wales centre for health unreasonably because all the media channels that may be used would have to be agreed with bodies over the border. Any message that the centre wanted to broadcast in Wales would probably have to be communicated jointly with those bodies.
	I shall list the media that might be used and comment very briefly on them. First, Sianel Pedwar Cymru—S4C, the Welsh television channel—is widely available as the hon. Gentleman has already said. I occasionally watch it when in London, and I understand that it is also available on the internet and can be watched all over the place. Radio Cymru and Radio Wales—the two national radio channels—are widely available in the west and north-west of England and in the midlands, as is witnessed by the phone-ins that they broadcast. People in many places listen to programmes on Radio Wales, so anything broadcast on those two media would then have to be communicated jointly with bodies in England.
	Of course the internet is available universally. It is available to people in Caernarfon in my constituency and to those in Caernarfon in New South Wales; to Bangor in the constituency of the hon. Member for Conwy and to Bangor, Maine. We are talking about only England and Wales, of course, but information that the Wales centre for health might produce would be widely accessible in many areas outside Wales, and any such decision would be a matter of practicality.

Bill Wiggin: Can the hon. Gentleman suggest any reason why people in England would not agree to co-operate with the Wales centre for health?

Hywel Williams: Certainly not; people would be very interested in co-operating, but the question is whether such things should be stated in the Bill and whether the centre should be constrained not to use media unless it agrees to communicate jointly. That question applies not only to broadcast media and the internet, but to newspapers because, as many hon. Members will know, the vast majority of people in Wales read morning and some evening newspapers that are produced in Fleet street in England, and 80 per cent. readership for the Daily Post and the Western Mail is fairly modest.

Nigel Evans: The hon. Gentleman will also recognise that, for example, the Daily Mirror produces an edition for Wales called the Welsh Mirror, which predominantly carries Welsh articles on certain pages, where advertisements could be placed that would not infringe the provision.

Hywel Williams: Yes, indeed. I agree with the hon. Gentleman; that is a matter of fact. I am sure that hon. Members would be very pleased if the print media in Wales were developed so that we could have dedicated Welsh newspapers. However, that it not the case at present, so the amendment would constrain the Wales centre for health if it wanted to use, for example, The Sun, which has a wide circulation in Wales, or, at the other end of the scale, the Shropshire Star, which is now sold in Barmouth, Harlech and various other places on the west coast.
	Those are the practical points that I want to make. I am entirely in favour of co-operation in health promotion; it is a vital function of the centre. I cannot see how the amendment would add anything to its operation. In fact, it would constrain it considerably.

Roger Williams: I am concerned about the amendment's practicality. During a short holiday in France, I had the great joy of watching S4C by some technical wizardry that enabled the owner of the property to watch club rugby while enjoying the finest wines available in the area. I do not know whether we would need the co-operation of various organisations in France to carry out the amendment's requirements.
	The Wales centre for health will have lots of organisations with which it can carry out its information campaigns, including the Brecon and Radnor Express—an excellent newspaper that is widely read throughout my constituency. However, the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) took things a little far when he said that the amendment would produce a reduction in surgery rage and hospital rage. I am not sure about the cost effectiveness of all the work that would have to be done.

Bill Wiggin: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that he does not want to see a reduction in hospital rage and surgery rage?

Roger Williams: I would obviously want to see a reduction in any rage in surgeries and hospitals, but I am suggesting that the amendment would have a minimal effect in achieving such a reduction.
	A number of my constituents face another problem. They do not turn their receivers towards England. The problem is that they cannot receive Welsh television, so the Wales centre for health would have a problem in communicating to those in that sector of Wales, which runs up and down the English border, who are unable to have access to television—the strongest and most important media in the country.
	In addition, I thought that the driving force of the amendment may have been to inform people in England of a special circumstance in Wales. For instance, were there an outbreak in Wales of a communicable disease such as mumps, rubella or chickenpox, it would be unwise for children from England who were not vaccinated to visit the area affected. That information might be required to be put out to people living in England. In those circumstances, it would be in the interests of everyone if the health authorities in England were informed of that. Once again, that is something that can be achieved in practice rather than in legislation, and I look forward to the Minister's comments.

Don Touhig: The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) felt that I was not at my best in the last debate. He was not persuaded by my argument or my oratory. I am sure that he will forgive me, however, if I point out that 300 people were, and they followed me into the Lobby, while barely 70 followed him.

Bill Wiggin: They were not watching.

Don Touhig: They were all listening or watching on the monitor.
	I also note the point of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) about communications and how he was watching club rugby and drinking good French wine. I did exactly the same in the Dordogne last year. Long may those methods of communication, and French wine, continue.
	The previous debate centred on the links between the health protection agency and the Wales centre for health. What is extraordinary about the amendment is that it will put a complete block on a key area of collaboration and communication between the health protection agency and the Wales centre for health. The amendment would impose unjustified restrictions on the Wales centre for health's ability to make information available to the public in Wales. It will prevent the centre from publishing information in any way that might lead to it reaching people anywhere outside Wales, without first getting the specific agreement of those public health information bodies responsible for the communication of health information in that area, as the amendment states.
	The amendment raises two issues: the role of the Wales centre for health in communicating with the public; and the need for the centre to collaborate with other bodies. On the first issue of the role of the Wales centre for health, there may be some misunderstanding. Let me clarify the matter. The role of the centre is to assess evidence and provide information and advice on public health issues to the public, to the Assembly and to other public sector organisations in Wales, including the new national public health service. It will also monitor trends and undertake surveillance, identify gaps in information and data and encourage action to fill those gaps, build partnerships with other bodies in the public, voluntary and academic sectors, and develop the skills and knowledge base that underpin public health practice.
	What the centre will not do, however, is conduct health promotion programmes, as it appeared that the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) was suggesting when he spoke a moment or two ago. That will remain the responsibility of the Assembly together with the national public health service in Wales, which will take over the health promotion work done by the health authorities when they are abolished later this year. There are already several campaigns in Wales addressing such issues as smoking, HIV and sexually transmitted infections in accordance with the Assembly's national health promotion strategy, XPromoting health and well-being". There has been no need to impose restrictions on those campaigns in terms of the media used, nor do they cause cross-border problems. There can be no justification for imposing such severe restrictions on the freedom of the Wales centre for health to provide information to the public, if it wished to use such media.
	The amendment refers to
	Xmedia channels widely accessible in any area outside Wales".
	That would include publications such as newspapers and magazines, including medical and professional journals, radio and television channels and the Wales centre for health's website. Many of those can be readily received in areas outside Wales. The amendment would therefore prevent publication through numerous media popular within Wales simply because they are, or could be, accessible in England, as the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) pointed out.
	I made it clear at column 58 in the second sitting of the Committee that the centre will have its own website, which will provide an important means by which it provides information across the planet. The amendment would prevent the centre from being able to post valuable information on its website simply because it would be accessible to people outside Wales. It could only overcome that embargo if it could secure joint publication with public health providers in the rest of the world. It is hard to see what form of communication would be accessible to the centre. Even locally distributed leaflets could stray across national boundaries: a wind might blow them across the border into England, and the centre would be in trouble. That shows the quality of the amendments being tabled by the Conservative party.
	At a time when communications have never been more fluid, nor information more accessible, the amendment would impose unacceptable and unreasonable restrictions on the Wales centre for health. It would restrict the free flow of information across Wales' borders—information that could benefit the rest of the United Kingdom.
	On the second issue of collaboration with other bodies, on which part of the debate on the previous group of amendments focused, I can confirm that the centre, in its shadow form, is already taking steps to co-ordinate its work with other bodies. For instance, it is to seek partner status with the public health observatories in England, and it is in contact with the Public Health Institute of Scotland and the Institute of Public Health in Ireland. It will work closely with the Health Development Agency in its development of a public health evidence base.
	Paragraph 20 of schedule 2 gives the centre the power to co-operate with other public authorities. The Assembly intends that it should do so with other bodies in Wales and in other parts of the United Kingdom and with other countries in the world. The centre will co-operate with other bodies in providing evidence and information. The amendment, however, would place severe restrictions on the means available for the centre to do so. It would also restrict the means by which public bodies outside Wales could learn of the information provided by the centre.
	The amendment is too prescriptive and is unworkable. The Bill requires the centre to make information about matters related to the protection and improvement of health in Wales available to the public in Wales. It must be up to the centre to decide how it intends to make that information available within Wales. I can only suggest that the author of the amendment must have been somebody related to comrade Ceaucescu.

Nigel Evans: I did not realise that S4C was so widely viewed in France. I am sure that it will be delighted to learn that its viewing figures, at certain peak times, may be larger in France than they are in Wales. Perhaps the French are tuning in to look at the quality of club rugby in Wales so that they can improve their game.
	The amendment is clearly designed to get everyone working together. The Minister tells us to accept with blind faith that organisations are doing what the amendment suggests and that they will do that in the future. However, when we try to make the position clear in the Bill, we are told that we are handcuffing organisations and that it would be dreadful to force them to do what we are told they are doing anyway. That argument does not wash with me.
	I have heard more red herrings than are in Billingsgate about what might happen if the amendment were accepted. The Minister talked about leaflets straying in the wind. Leafleting is possibly one of the most effective tools for communicating a message if the leaflets are targeted and delivered and are not thrown up on the borders in the hope that the wind is blowing in the right direction. That would be ridiculous.
	The vast majority of local newspapers would not fall foul of the provisions in the amendment. They are most widely read in the area in which they are distributed. I am sure that people from England and other parts of the world subscribe to the newspaper circulated in the constituency of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams). However, it is most widely read in its own patch, as is the case with most local newspapers.
	I am not convinced by the Minister's argument. He was not at his best in the previous debate and he certainly has not been at his best in this one. He has not convinced me, so we shall press the amendment to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	The House divided: Ayes 78, Noes 326.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Order for Third Reading read.

Don Touhig: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	The Bill has been considered in Standing Committee and on Report. It exemplifies the partnership that exists between the Labour Government and the Labour-led National Assembly for Wales and is a practical example of the benefits of devolution. Although Westminster and Cardiff have already achieved a great deal by working together, the Bill proves that that partnership has the potential to deliver much more for the people of Wales. The Bill helps to fill in the detail of the strategic framework established in the last Session by the NHS Reform and Health Care Professions Act 2002. It will deliver some of the key elements of the Assembly's 10-year plan to improve the health and well-being of the people of Wales. By bringing patients closer to the centre of the stage, the Bill will give them a stronger voice in the improvement, development and running of the health service in Wales. The newly reformed community health councils will be the main vehicle for giving patients a greater say.
	The Bill retains and reforms CHCs in Wales and provides an independent NHS complaints and advocacy service, which will strengthen public and patient involvement in health service planning and delivery. It establishes the Wales centre for health to provide independent training, advice and research in health care, which will make an important contribution to arrangements for protecting and improving health. It also establishes Health Professions Wales to provide education and training of health care professionals. That will increase the equality, effectiveness and efficiency of the health care system.
	The Bill is important not just for its content, but for the process by which it has come before us. It is the first all-Wales Bill to have been subject to the rigours of pre-legislative scrutiny. It is no exaggeration to say that it is regarded as the model for the way in which that should be carried out. As such, it comes to us not only improved in its contents by pre-legislative scrutiny, but as an ambassador for the process. It underlines how the House can change and reform its processes to improve legislation making. The Government are rightly proud of that innovation and gratified by the reaction to it. We consequently intend to make more use of that form of scrutiny. However, it is right to pay tribute to the four Opposition parties and their leaders in Wales and the House who welcomed and embraced the pre-legislative process. They helped to underpin its legitimacy. Rather than merely having a political party express its will, hopes and aspirations in Parliament, they expressed the will of the House in Parliament.
	The Bill was first published in draft as the NHS (Wales) Bill in May last year. Some 87 organisations and individuals representing the profession and other bodies that would be affected by it were sent copies and explanatory notes on which they were invited to comment. Some 27 did so. To facilitate the widest possible public involvement, the draft Bill was also published on the Wales Office website. Some 15 people responded to that including, as I said on Second Reading, a Mr. Lei Leiu in China, who sent an e-mail offering to sell us an excellent forging hammer. It is clear that something was lost in translation. That aspect of scrutiny produced 25 recommendations for changes to the draft Bill.
	The Welsh Affairs Committee considered the draft Bill in this House. I want to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones), who chairs that Committee, and Committee members for their work in scrutinising the Bill. The Committee also consulted stakeholders widely. Both the Assembly Health and Social Services Minister, Jane Hutt, and I gave evidence before the Committee, which produced a carefully considered report with 17 recommendations for change. The Welsh Grand Committee had a full day's debate on the report. The National Assembly for Wales also debated it in Cardiff in committee and in its plenary session. The Health and Social Services Minister and I also accepted an invitation to appear before an all-party group in the other place. The Assembly asked for a number of changes to the Bill to which we were able to accede in most cases.
	Publication in draft has allowed for a lengthy, thorough and open consideration of the Bill and the policies that it contains. It says much for the effort put into the original draft, including discussion with stakeholders by the Assembly, that the draft Bill received warm and widespread welcome across Wales. Indeed, none of the pre-legislative scrutiny revealed any concerns with the principle of what was proposed. The pre-legislative scrutiny produced 45 recommendations for changes to the draft Bill. Some of those duplicated recommendations and some suggested extending the Bill to include, for example, a ban on smoking in public places, which, as I explained on Second Reading and in Committee would be outside the Bill's scope.
	The Bill adopts the principles behind 16 of the recommended amendments. The revised Bill was considered by the Standing Committee and agreed without amendment. It remains unchanged. All amendments to the draft Bill could be categorised as minor or technical—even the change to the long and short title. It is worth reflecting on some of the more significant changes because they provide a context for the issues raised in Standing Committee. The Bill is essentially enabling by nature. It quite properly devolves responsibility for determining the detail of the function of the bodies established by the Bill—the reformed community health councils, the Wales centre for health and Health Professions Wales—to the Assembly. It would fly in the face of devolution to do otherwise.
	Questions were raised during consultation about the extent to which this approach might be seen to constrain the freedom or independence of the bodies. The policy intention was that they should enjoy considerable autonomy. On reflection, we concluded that the Bill would be improved if we made that clearer, so we amended the draft Bill to give more powers to CHCs to require information, and to impose on them a clearer duty to report on their activities. We also restricted the Assembly's powers to direct the activities of the Wales centre for health and removed the Assembly's power to issue directions about the functions of Health Professions Wales.
	When we came to Second Reading, several hon. Members dwelt on those issues. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) asserted that the Assembly's powers over CHCs were too wide. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) called for greater independence for CHCs, and the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) extended that to call for more independence for CHCs, the Wales centre for health and Health Professions Wales.
	In the Standing Committee, we were privileged to work under the guidance of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths). I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House want me to pay tribute to his wise and skilful chairmanship and to say that we will miss him when he stands down at the next election. We wish him well for the future. He made a major contribution to the Bill's passage through the Committee. Opposition Members tabled several amendments, and some, where the Bill's intentions may not have been clear enough, were of a probing nature. I hope that we satisfied all hon. Members on those matters. Other amendments continued the theme of the Second Reading debate and sought to strengthen the position of the CHCs, the Wales centre for health and Health Professions Wales.
	The intention behind those amendments was summarised by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell at the Committee's third sitting, when he said:
	XBroadly speaking, the Committee is agreed that the Bill is a decent set of steps, sensible, based on consultation and welcomed by health care professionals in Wales."
	In fairness to him, I point out that he went on to say:
	XIts main weakness is that in several different ways it hands excessive power to the politicians of the Assembly".—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 12 December 2002; c. 89.]
	I wholeheartedly concur with his first point, but I disagree with him totally on the second. Giving power to the Assembly within a carefully constructed legislative framework, and making those powers subject to the Assembly's arrangements for democratic determination, so that there can be detailed, open and transparent consultation, can hardly be deemed excessive when considered in the context of the devolution settlement.
	The independence that Opposition Members seek to enshrine in the Bill is already assured. We took careful note of the views expressed by stakeholders during pre-legislative scrutiny. We amended the draft Bill in 16 areas to address the concerns expressed and, as I was able to remind the Standing Committee, amendments were made to provide greater autonomy and to clarify the independence of CHCs, the Wales centre for health and Health Professions Wales.
	I was also able to assure the Standing Committee that the Assembly's freedom to impinge on the autonomy of those bodies was itself constrained by its own consultation arrangements, which I further explained in a subsequent letter sent to all members of the Committee.
	This is a short Bill—short in content and short on controversy—but it is important. It breaks new ground in pre-legislative scrutiny and it is important for the future of health care in Wales. It is a key part of the reform agenda of the Government and the Assembly. It had a thorough airing before introduction. It reflected the views of stakeholders when introduced, and its intentions have been further clarified in Standing Committee and in the House today. I therefore have no hesitation in commending the Bill to the House and asking hon. Members to give it a Third Reading.

Nigel Evans: We have heard a lot about the strengths of devolution, and in all honesty I cannot say that the NHS in Wales is a prime example of it. However, I heard the Secretary of State for Wales on the Frost programme on Sunday trying to entice Sir David Frost with the news that, thanks to devolution, he can look forward soon to receiving a concessionary bus pass. There was a look of bemusement on Sir David's face at the prospect of catching the No. 13 bus from Swansea to Townhill. I am not sure what he thought the Secretary of State was saying.
	The Minister has just spoken about the procedure that the Bill followed, which we certainly welcome. Pre-legislative scrutiny is important, particularly as, time and again, we find our opportunities for detailed consideration of Bills further constrained. Perhaps the Minister should have bought the forge hammer from Mr. Lei Leiu of China so that he could have knocked the Bill into better shape. However, we know that the Bill has a further journey to make. Judging by its consideration in Committee and in the House today, the Government should not be so obsessed with timetabling. There is a great deal of good will on this side of the House towards Bills that genuinely deserve support.
	I echo the Minister's comments about the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), who chaired the Standing Committee well. Of course, he takes a great interest in this area of the NHS in Wales, and has much experience of it. We wish him well for his retirement at the end of this Parliament.
	We know that the Government intended the Bill to be much bigger, but parts of it were hived off to the NHS Reform and Health Care Professions Bill. Problems will arise from that Bill, not this one. I have huge reservations about that new bureaucratic system, with five health authorities being replaced by 22 local health boards and other bodies.
	We know that the former Secretary of State for Education and Skills said yesterday in an interview that politicians should be more credible and admit when they have made mistakes. This is one area in which Welsh politicians and UK politicians could achieve more credibility with the public by admitting that they have made a big mistake with those reforms. A report out this week says that #8.5 million of savings must be made in the NHS in Wales if the reforms are to be cost-neutral, and that is without the #15 million of transitional cost in setting up the new bodies, so there will be problems with that bureaucracy.
	Returning to the Bill before the House, we support the retention of CHCs in Wales. We supported their retention in England as well, and we would have welcomed that measure if Labour Members had voted for it. We tried in our amendments to give CHCs more independence. The issue is not whether we should trust the Welsh Assembly to retain power over CHCs but whether we should ensure that CHCs, which are the whistleblowers, watchdogs and champions of patients, will be given independence. They would not then need to worry that the Welsh Assembly could change their name, savage them or even abolish them, which the Bill gives the Assembly the power to do.
	We know that CHCs will be hugely busy. Headlines randomly selected from newspapers make that clear. One says XHutt again fails to meet targets" and another, from the South Wales Evening Post, says XWoman, 82, stranded in hospital". Another headline is, XHealth wait deadline passes"—a reference to people who had to wait more than 18 months for orthopaedic surgery. I know that the Minister said that the Welsh Assembly had made advances in that key area, but I am afraid that in some parts of Wales the waits are still huge. Other headlines are, XHealth board shake-up costs 'rise'"—a reference to the fact that an imperceptible improvement in the service will cost a lot—and, XNursing vacancies plague Welsh NHS".
	Those are important headlines. One can hardly open a newspaper in Wales without reading a story about the dire problems faced by the NHS. In Wales, more money is spent per head of population than in England—#822 in Wales compared with #740 in England, although waiting lists in England are lower than in Wales. Since 1997, the number of beds in Wales has been reduced, and both in-patient and out-patient waiting lists have gone up. Total activity has gone down, as has elective activity. I referred earlier to University hospital of Wales, which has stopped non-emergency operations until February because of winter problems. I have talked about orthopaedic surgery. In Gwent, 1,200 patients have waited more than three years to see a consultant for the first time, which is not acceptable or humane. Waiting lists are also rising in several other key areas.
	At the same time, bed blocking is a problem in Wales, and we have not heard any solution to the issue. Local authority care homes are closing, which will add even further to the problems of the NHS in Wales. We know that the health service is scouring the world for nurses and that more patients are being sent abroad or to England for their operations, which is causing a huge problem for trusts' budgets in England. As I said, trusts are spending more in Wales than in England. It is terrible that the NHS in Wales faces all those dire problems, and I feel sorry for the dedicated staff who are dogged by politicians, whether from Westminster or Wales. They are being prevented from getting on with the job that they sincerely want to do and which was their reason for going into the NHS in the first place.
	I do not believe that the Government woke up one day and said, XLet's see how we can wreck the NHS," but that is exactly what has happened since they came to power in 1997. As for the Bill, we wish it well. We hope that when it goes to the other place, peers will look at some of our suggestions and table their own amendments. Indeed, I hope that the Government in a quieter moment will reflect on our suggestions and amend the Bill in the other place themselves. However, we wish the Bill well, and I do not wish to delay its progress any further.

Roger Williams: We welcome the Bill as well. During an earlier discussion of the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Opik) spoke about the stress he suffered as a result of the Conservatives' delay in announcing whether they would support the Bill. I am pleased to say that he has recovered and is now doing his bit in Committee.
	I congratulate everyone who has contributed to the progress of the Bill, particularly the hon. Member for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones) on his work with the Select Committee. The good relationship that has developed between the Assembly and Welsh Members will stand the legislative system in Wales in good stead, and will give us a huge advantage when we come to consider other Bills. We all recognise the problems that Wales faces, and the Bill represents a step forward in improving the NHS there. To a large extent, the poor state of the health of the Welsh nation is an historic problem. Any audit would point out that many people suffer health problems such as pneumoconiosis and silicosis as a result of their employment in the mining and slate industries. In the farming industry, people suffer from farmer's lung, an illness that attacks the lungs.
	Those chronic illnesses are not cured easily, if at all, but we should ensure that people's quality of life is improved so that they can have a longer and more enjoyable life. People whose jobs involve heavy lifting can suffer from orthopaedic conditions. As I walk around farmers' markets in my area, I see many farmers hobbling away, waiting for their hip replacement, an operation that can provide many with comfort and relief.

Nigel Evans: Is the hon. Gentleman disturbed by the increasing number of people who have to use their life savings and, indeed, borrow money to go private because of the wait, often in great pain, that they have to endure before getting a hip replacement on the NHS?

Roger Williams: I agree. Many of us have dealt in our surgeries with people waiting for hip replacements who are forced to use the private sector. To some extent, that is an historic problem that cannot be solved at the stroke of a pen; it will take time.
	Ill health in Wales is due not only to employment, but to high unemployment. The closure of the steel industry and the coal mines has brought relative poverty to many areas. There is a close relationship between poverty and ill health. Through a cycle of ill health and deprivation, families that have suffered from ill health for many years go on to produce another generation whose lifestyle and quality of life make it more prone to long periods of ill health. Youth unemployment has decreased over recent years, but many people have difficulty in finding gainful employment, and drug abuse has dragged them into ill health and exclusion from the health service.
	The Bill is, as the Minister said, an enabling Bill. I welcome that. It gives powers to the Assembly to organise the structure and workings of the three organisations in a way that is suitable for Wales. In Committee, I was critical of some of the Tory amendments

Chris Grayling: Tell us about yours.

Roger Williams: I shall in a moment. I was glad to see Tory amendments, as we would have had a very short Committee stage without them. I was critical of them because they showed a misunderstanding of the devolution principle and settlement. It is not in the interests of devolution for the primary legislation to contain such fixed requirements that they give the Assembly no discretion to use its powers to make the organisations responsive to the needs of the people of Wales. I was happier with the tone of today's Tory amendments, which reflected a sense of partnership and working together. I am sure that that can be achieved, not necessarily by being written into the Bill, but through the working partnerships that will grow up between people working in different areas of Britain who are concerned to improve the health of the nation.
	We are pleased that community health councils are to be retained in Wales and their role enhanced and extended. If that is to be achieved, we must ensure that the their membership is of suitable calibre and sufficiently representative of the people who live in Wales. I have mentioned on several occasions the amount of training that CHC members will have to undertake to carry out their responsibilities. I am pleased that the Assembly will be able to arrange appointments to the CHCs.
	Although local authority members have for a long time made a huge contribution to the work of the CHCs, too many of them on such a council will not enhance its work. Many local authority members give much time and effort to that work, while some see it as an extension of their local authority work. They put more emphasis on the local authority work, and less time and effort into their CHC work. I have spoken to local authority members about the provision. They are happy about it. If they want to obtain or retain membership of a CHC, they can put their name forward and go through the process. The Nolan principles for the system of appointment are well established in Wales and widely respected. Gone are the times when all three members for the Brecon Beacons national park went to the same church, which was the church that the Secretary of State attended.
	Since the Standing Committee proceedings finished, I have received representations about the name of CHCs. We discussed whether they had a good brand name and whether it should be retained on the basis that everybody knows where to go. However, certain members of CHCs believe that they could be renamed with a term that makes them more accessible and is more descriptive of their job and their advocacy work on patients' behalf.
	The Wales centre for health will undoubtedly do much good work that will be valuable in addressing the endemic problems that affect the Welsh nation in relation to health. A huge amount of work certainly needs to be done on research and to roll out some specific results on Welsh conditions and medical problems.
	I do not think that Health Professions Wales will act as a bar to prevent people from coming to Wales to work in nursing or any of the other health professions. It will be an enabling body that will encourage people to come to Wales to work. It will also produce an environment in which people can enter their chosen profession and look to it to give them a good quality of life and experiences. The body could also be influential in improving the qualifications to which health professionals can aspire and perhaps increasing their number. Qualifications might be introduced in relation to skills or duties that would be useful in a specifically Welsh context.
	I am sure that everybody will want the Bill successfully to complete its passage.

Bill Wiggin: The Bill will, sensibly, retain CHCs for Wales. It is a disgrace that English CHCs have not been preserved in the same way. While I am happy to work in the House for what is best for the Welsh people, it is fair to point out that Labour Members have a responsibility to look after the whole of the UK and that the Bill will therefore stand in the statute book as a monument to new Labour's double standards.
	What is good for the goose is good for the ganderand my entry in the Register of Members' Interests shows that I have some expertise on geese. We know that CHCs are a good thing, as does the National Assembly for Wales. What a shame that nobody told the Executive of this Government, as was shown when my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) asked the Prime Minister this question:
	XFollowing the Government's humiliating defeat in another place last night, will the Prime Minister finally agree with the views of medical charities, the British Medical Association and the Opposition and withdraw his mad plans to abolish community health councils?
	The Prime Minister replied:
	XNo, we will not, because the replacement of community health councils by patient forums and patient councils is, we believe, and as the College of Health made clear earlier, a better way to make sure that patients' interests are represented. There has been a debate about community health councils for many years, but patient forums[Official Report, 25 April 2002; Vol. 376, c. 305.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are debating on Third Reading the contents of the Bill that is before the House. The hon. Gentleman cannot remain in order while making such comparisons with matters outside the Bill. He must speak about the contents of the Bill that is before the House.

Bill Wiggin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I ask you for some guidance? I was quoting those remarks because the retention of CHCs is the sole purpose of the first part of the Bill. That is why I was making such comparisons. Am I out of order in that respect?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I can allow the hon. Gentleman to allude to the fact that a different policy is being pursued in England, but that is outwith the scope of the Bill. On Third Reading, a much more restrictive approach is taken than on Second Reading, when hon. Members can speak about what they would like a Bill to deal with and make complaints in that regard. On Third Reading, it is not in order to talk about matters that lie outside the Bill.

Bill Wiggin: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I remain a little muddled about the matter. However, I shall cease quoting the Prime Minister, although it is fair that hon. Members have a good idea of the double standards.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I could clear up the muddle more drastically for the hon. Member.

Bill Wiggin: I hope that you will not feel that that is necessary, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	Let me deal with the aspects of the Bill that cover the National Assembly. Until your recent intervention, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I had not witnessed such pathological delight by Labour Members as that shown in their eagerness to hand over opportunities to the National Assembly to exercise powers such as those in the Bill. I am worried about the autonomy of Health Professions Wales and the Wales centre for health as well as Welsh CHCs when the National Assembly can exercise almost unlimited power over them.
	I am also worried about the Bill's ambiguity on the co-ordination of the activities of the Wales centre for health and Health Professions Wales with those in rest of the United Kingdom. For example, there is the bureaucracy involving Welsh patients who seek medical treatment in England or vice versa. I support the Conservative view that a strong, independent body separate from the Welsh Assembly needs to be created to support CHCs. We were dismayed that none of the amendments that we tabled in Committee in favour of the independence of Welsh CHCs was accepted.
	Let me give an example of imbalance. The Bill gives highly centralised powers to the National Assembly for Wales to abolish or alter the CHCs, to abolish or assume the functions of the Wales centre for health as well as to appoint its members and chairman, and to abolish Health Professions Wales. Although I am sure that it is possible for the Government to know and agree with the intentions of the current Welsh Assembly Administration, it is impossible to know the type of Administration that will exist in future.
	I have always believed that, when making law, we should take the longer-term view and attempt to prevent as many unknown eventualities as possible, thus ensuring that the powers in the Bill will not have to be redistributed yet again. I am not against its concepts, but I am increasingly saddened by the short-term approach that it exemplifies.
	Foundation hospitals constitute another missed opportunity. We have all expressed anxiety that there are no plans to create foundation hospitals in Wales. An article in the Daily Post on 12 December confirmed that there are no plans for such hospitals. The Secretary of State for Wales endorsed the views of the First Minister, Rhodri Morgan, that foundation hospitals are not an option for Wales. He effectively endorsed Mr. Morgan's criticisms of the Prime Minister's national health and social policies on the development of foundation hospitals.
	Although I appreciate that some may describe Rhodri Morgan as a dinosaur with extreme socialist views who is stuck in a prehistoric shell and refuses to accept that we have moved on from the 1940s, the First Minister is more than entitled to his views. However, the Secretary of State deserves criticism for endorsing those seriously outdated views. Despite criticising the two-tier health service, the Government are trying to construct a similar division.

Don Touhig: The Secretary of State made it clear in his comments that we are a partnership. The Government here and the Government in the Assembly have the same objectives, which we shall follow by different routes. However, the objectives are the same, and the Secretary of State emphasised that.

Bill Wiggin: I am grateful for the Minister's intervention.
	I am also worried about the excessive bureaucracy that the Bill will add to the already horrific amount in the NHS in Wales. Health spending in Wales is significantly higher than in England, yet Wales has worse health outcomes. The Labour-Liberal Democrat Welsh Assembly Government have failed to meet their targets for waiting lists, which continue to increase. Welsh consultants rejected the Government's offer of a new contract because they were worried that the waiting list targets distorted clinical priorities.
	The shortage of funding for Welsh patients who seek treatment in England has threatened the principle of treating patients according to clinical priority. Shortages of care home places and delayed discharge are also significant problems in Wales. There are also many GP vacancies. A truly Welsh health Bill would deal with those matters and strengthen the excellent work of the staff, doctors, nurses and managers who work in Wales. A Welsh health Bill of which we could all be proud would put patients first.

Hywel Williams: I am sure that hon. Members will be gratified to learn that I intend to be brief. [Hon. Members: XSit down, then!] I shall in a moment, if hon. Members contain themselves.
	I welcome this, the first all-Wales Bill since devolution. It is the product of extensive preparation and discussion. The proposals that have been fashioned are extremely appropriate for Wales and do not preclude co-operation between the health service in Wales and that in England, Scotland or any other country. The Bill contains valuable proposals for the Wales centre for health, which will have a vital job in promoting public health. I also welcome the establishment of Health Professions Wales, and the strengthening of the CHCs, including, I hope, their all-Wales body.
	I would like to look at the process by which we have reached this point. It has involved an extensive process of consultation, consideration and discussion involving the National Assembly for Wales and its committees, the public, the Welsh Affairs Committee, the Welsh Grand Committee, followed by the Bill's Second Reading, the Standing Committee, Report and Third Readingnine steps, so far. The interpretation of this process will, no doubt, be varied and could form the subject of much discussion in Wales in political and academic circles. I look forward to that discussion, as I think that we need to develop our understanding of Welsh political processes through as wide a discussion as possible. Bearing in mind those nine steps, however, I conclude by commending to hon. Membersand, incidentally, to Lord Richardthe good business principle of cutting out the middle man.

Don Touhig: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to say that we have had another good debate on the Health (Wales) Bill this afternoon, and we have again explored in fine detail some of its provisions. The outcome has confirmed that the pre-legislative scrutiny that preceded the Bill's introduction was successful, and proceedings in the Standing Committee and here today have further assisted in providing a thorough understanding and appreciation of the Bill and the policies that it seeks to implement.
	The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) gave the Bill a welcome but then, as usual, dwelt on some of the problems that we have had with the health service in Wales. We recognise that there are problems, but I hope that he will also recognise that the legacy of his party's time in government was closed hospitals, fewer doctors and nurses, and fewer hospital beds. One wonders where the Conservatives' present proposal for a 20 per cent. cut in public expenditure would leave the health service in Wales, if ever they were in power and able to do anything so drastic and insane.
	The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) welcomed the Bill. He referred to some of the problems that we face in Wales, in terms of the legacy of ill-health and inequality. He also touched on the worries about orthopaedics. I can tell him that, in Gwent, where there has been a problem with the delivery of orthopaedic services, the health expert Professor Brian Edwards will carry out a review of orthopaedics in the area of the Gwent NHS trust, and produce a report on ways in which waiting times can be reduced. We all look forward to that.
	The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) highlighted the different approaches in Wales and England, so far as giving patients a clear voice is concerned. That is devolution, and this Labour Government, working in partnership with the Labour-led Assembly, share the same objectives, although we may well follow different routes to achieve them. That is perfectly valid within the context of the devolution settlement in Britain. He also mentioned waiting lists. As I said earlier, there have been significant improvements in reducing waiting lists in Wales. Money is being put in to tackle the problem, reforms are being put in place, and the taskforce headed by the Assembly's deputy Health Minister is now monitoring progress to see how quickly we can reduce waiting lists across a range of areas in Wales.
	The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) welcomed the Bill, but also spoke about the processes by which we brought it here. No doubt we shall continue to evaluate how successful they have been. I am sure that there will be Wales-only legislation further down the line and that we shall examine how we should consult, in a pre-legislative sense, before it comes before the House.
	The Bill contains three key elements that have been extensively considered and welcomed. The first is the retention and reform of community health councils, which has been widely welcomed. The second is the welcome from stakeholders for the establishment of the Wales centre for health, which was conceived back in 1998 in the days of the old Welsh Office before devolution and taken on as a result of the commitment of the Cardiff Assembly. That means that we shall strengthen public health capability and capacity in Wales. The third is the creation of Health Professions Walesa body to perform the functions of the former Welsh National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting and to support post-registration education and training of health care professionals.
	Proceedings in Standing Committee improved Members' understanding and knowledge of the Bill, which have also been enhanced this afternoon. I am grateful for all contributions made by Members throughout the pre-legislative process and in Committee as well as on Report and Third Reading. We have done a good job of work between us and I am very pleased. I have every confidence in commending the Bill to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
	That, at the sitting on Thursday 16th January, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Union documents), the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion relating to Fisheries at Six o'clock, or three hours after their commencement, whichever is the later and the Orders of the House of 28th June 2001 and 29th October 2002 relating to deferred Divisions shall not apply.[Mr. Caplin.]

Lords Bills

Motion made, and Question proposed,
	That
	(1) Standing Order No. 57 (Presentation and first reading) be amended, by leaving out paragraph (3);
	(2) The following Standing Order (Bills brought from the Lords) be made:
	'57A.(1) If a Member informs the Clerks at the Table of his intention to take charge of a bill which has been brought from the Lords, the bill shall be deemed to have been read the first time on the day on which the Member so informs the Clerks, and to have been ordered to be read a second time on such day as he shall appoint, and shall be recorded in the Journal of the House as having been read the first time and ordered to be read a second time on the day so appointed, and shall be ordered to be printed.
	(2) If a public bill is passed by the Lords and carried to the office of the Clerk of the House at a time when this House is not sitting, then, provided that a Member shall have notified the Clerks at the Table, in writing, of his intention to take charge of the bill
	(a) the Clerk of the House shall arrange for the printing and circulation of copies of the bill, and
	(b) the bill shall be recorded in the Journal of the House as having been read the first time on the next sitting day and as having been ordered to be printed pursuant to this standing order and to be read a second time on such day as the Member shall have appointed.'; and
	(3) Standing Order No. 78 (Lords amendments) be amended as follows:
	Line 1, after 'bills', insert 'and Lords reasons';
	Line 3, at end insert 'and the provisions of S.O. No. 57A (Bills brought from the Lords) shall apply to the appointment of consideration and the printing of Lords amendments and reasons as they apply to the appointment of second reading and the printing of bills brought from the House of Lords'; and
	Line 5, after 'bills', insert 'or Lords reasons'.[Mr. Caplin.]

Paul Tyler: I apologise for bringing back to the House a matter that I raised earlier on a point of order. In apologising to the Minister, I should perhaps explain that we were made fully aware of the potential defect in the motion only this afternoon.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell), our Chief Whip, has been seeking enlightenment from various parts of the House for the past 48 hours or so, and he has had considerable difficulty in finding the author of the motion. We understand that it has been at the bottom of a drawer for some time, but its original author has, at long last, been discovered today. HeI think the author is a hehas acknowledged that there is a potential lacuna, which my hon. Friend will refer to in more detail in a moment.
	I have been a Member of the House long enough to be immediately suspicious whenever anybody from the Government Whips Office tells me that something is a mere technicality and that we need take no notice whatever of it. In such circumstances, we thought that we should look carefully at the issue. Initially, we thought that there was a potential relevance to the issue of ping-pong between the two Houses, but that does not seem to be the real problem. Nevertheless, there is a defect.
	It seems to me that a point of principle is involved. If any Member, whether a Back Bencher or a Front Bencher, identifies a possible problem with any motion brought before the House, it is their responsibility to raise it in the House before that motion goes through so that we can deal with it there and then, rather than wait for another occasion on which to try to correct it.
	I hope that the Minister's response to this brief debate indicates that he is prepared to take the motion back for further consideration in the light of the issues that we have raised with the House this afternoon and the misgiving of the author in the Clerk's Department that it may not be as watertight as he originally intended. If he does so, there will be no need to divide the House. If not, we must deal with the point of principle. We shall listen carefully to his assurances to see whether a Division is necessary.
	I must tell the Conservative spokesman, the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), who remains on the Front Bench, that the shadow deputy Leader of the House has indicated that he shares our misgivings, so no doubt he would join us in the Lobby if that became necessary. Following those few words, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove may catch your eye.

Andrew Stunell: The context for the debate is the change to the sitting hours of the House, as there will be more occasions on which a sitting of the House of Lords continues beyond a sitting of this House. It has therefore been thought fit to introduce a change to our Standing Orders such that when a Bill has completed its passage through the House of Lords and is returning to this House, it would not be necessary for this House to remain sitting to receive it at the close of business.
	The motion, apart from continuing the existing procedure, albeit with a different numbering, would introduce a new procedure to, in effect, allow the House to be deemed to be sitting so that a Bill coming from the House of Lords could be carried straightforwardly and picked up by a Member of this House.
	We have no problem with the principle or the theory of a change in our Standing Orders that we consider practical and sensible in the light of the change in our arrangements generally, but we see a difficulty in the proposed process. Normally, when a Bill has completed its progress in the House of Lords it is physically brought to this House and laid on the Table, at which point a Member can take it up. If this House is not sitting, however, there is no point at which a Member can take up a Bill.
	Paragraph (2) of the proposed new Standing Order, in paragraph (2) of the motion, states:
	XIf a public bill is passed by the Lords and carried to the office of the Clerk of the House at a time when this House is not sitting, then, provided that a Member shall have notified the Clerks at the Table, in writing, of his intention to take charge of the bill,
	and so forth. The key words are:
	Xprovided that a Member shall have notified the Clerks at the Table, in writing, of his intention to take charge of the bill.
	That seems perfectly sensible, until we ask when the Clerks can be notified of that intention. There is no start date, and no end date. In the case of our normal procedures, the start date is clear: it is the day on which the Bill has been laid on the Table when the House of Commons is in session.
	Today I asked the motion's original author whether there would be anything to prevent me from submitting to the Clerk of the House some 36 letters covering each of the Bills that the Government are taking through the House of Lords and declaring my intention of taking them up when they reach this House. If I wrote the letters today or tomorrow, I would be the first person to submit such a request and, according to the motion, would therefore appear to have absolute priority. He quite properly told me that all Standing Orders are subject to interpretation by Mr. Speaker; he also told me that such matters must be interpreted with common sense.
	I fully accept both those points. Clearly our business could not proceed solely on the basis of the literal interpretation of every Standing Order, and common sense must indeed be brought to bear. Let us suppose, however, that I did not write my 36 letters tonight. Later in the Session, also on a Thursday and perhaps at about this time of day, it might become clear that our business would end before 6 pm, and also that a Bill would emerge from the Lords later than 6 pm. Would it be in order for me to give a letter to the Clerk at this point, in anticipation of that Bill's arrival, or would I have to wait for the moment at which the Bill was passed in the Lords? Or is there some other start date?
	I have told the draftsmen, and the Clerk of Legislationwith whom I had a discussion todaythat we are faced with the possibility of a race without a starting line or a starting time.
	It could be argued that we can leave all these matters to the rulings of Mr. Speaker, and the common sense and good judgment of the House. Although I have no objection to that in principle, I think it unfortunate that, in changing our Standing Orders positively and introducing a new procedure, we may also introduce a gapa holein the evidence needed for an interpretation.
	In the light of this debate, the Minister may want to agree to withdrawing the motion, and to taking a second look at the two lines in paragraph 2(2) stating
	Xthat a Member shall have notified the Clerks at the Table, in writing.
	We need a starting moment for such submissions.
	This is not an entirely academic point. The House will undoubtedly be aware that there have been occasions when it has been a matter of contention as to who should pick up a Bill from the other place and who should proceed with it. Indeed, it has sometimes been a matter of competition as to who gets to the Table first to take the Bill up. Well, we understand the procedures of this place, and earlier this week there was an example of that kind of competitive approach to the Clerks at the Table which has yet to be fully resolved. I want to make it clear that that process is understood and is acceptable when the House is sitting, but when it is not, how does that competition find effect? How is priority given to one Member over another, where such competition exists?
	In the light of advice that I received from the Clerk of Legislation, of discussions with the original drafter of this motion, and of points that have been made in the House, I hope that the Government will agree to withdrawing this motion, so that a second look can be taken and a simple and straightforward tweaking of the wording can be made, which would be for the good order and best conduct of this House.

Ben Bradshaw: I am very grateful to the hon. Members for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) and for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) for raising this matter earlier in a point of order, because that gave me the chance to consult with my officials and the Clerks of the House. I think that the House agrees that this is a sensible motion in principle. It deals with the strange anomaly that, until now, the House has been unable to receive Lords messages when it is not sitting. That contrasts with the other place, which can do the reverse.
	The hon. Member for Hazel Grove has identified a potential problem, which I shall briefly describe as the possibility of a hostile takeover of a private Member's Bill coming from the other place. Following conversations with my own officials and, through them, with the Clerks of this place, it has become clear that the author of the motion does not in fact consider it defective. It is true that he has identified a potential problem, but I hope that, in the light of what I am about to say, the hon. Gentleman will feel able to support the motion.
	I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, but there are a couple of caveats. First, the provision will apply only if a Lords message arrives when the House is not sittinga point that is obvious to all of us. Secondly, it is already possible that two or more Members might vie to take up a Bill arriving from the Lords, so the theoretical problem already exists. The hon. Gentleman's prime concern appeared to be that the Standing Order applies no starting date for a notice in writing of a Member's taking up a Bill. The House authorities assure me that they would not accept notice way in advance in the manner that he suggested, nor would they accept any attempt to set down a Bill for Second Reading at a far off datethe other hypothetical example suggested by the hon. Gentleman.
	I should say in all honesty that no Standing Order in this place is utterly safe from some kind of abuse, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members that, were problems to emerge in practice as a result of this motion, we would make changes. In the light of those assurances, I hope that he and other hon. Members will feel able to support the motion. I commend it to the House.

Andrew Stunell: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the Minister has sat down he cannot take an intervention, and the hon. Gentleman is not allowed to speak again.
	Question put and agreed to.

COMMITTEES

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With the leave of the House, I shall put together motions Nos. 5 to 7.
	Ordered,
	That Mr. Mark Simmonds be discharged from the Environmental Audit Committee and Mr. Peter Ainsworth be added.
	That Angela Watkinson be discharged from the European Scrutiny Committee and Mr. Richard Bacon be added.
	That Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas be discharged from the Regulatory Reform Committee and Mr. John MacDougall be added.[Mr. Woolas.]

PETITION
	  
	Food Supplements

Laurence Robertson: The petition from Consumers for Health Choice and its supporters declares:
	Consumers in the United Kingdom have for many years maintained good health by choosing to take safe vitamin and mineral supplements and herbal remedies and fear that the European Food Supplements Directive and the proposed European Directive on Traditional Herbal Medicinal Herbal Products will severely restrict the number and range of such products on general retail sale in the future.
	The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons requires that the Secretary of State for Health does all in his power to protect the rights of UK consumers by ensuring that such European legislation does not unnecessarily and unacceptably restrict the availability of natural herbal products.
	And the petitioners remain, etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

OIL INDUSTRY

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Mr. Woolas.]

Eric Joyce: A great deal has been said and written in recent months about employment in the North sea and elsewhere off the UK coastline. As far as I am aware, virtually all of that debate has been about the fishing industry, which I understand accounts for about 5,000 jobs. It is certainly true that the fishing industry is going through a challenging time and I know that the Government and the Scottish Executive are working hard to ensure the best possible deal for workers in that sector, but it would be wrong to allow the imperative edge of recent debate in that field to obscure the fact that more than 30,000 people in this country are employed offshore in the oil and gas industries, and many more related jobs exist on the UK mainland, including around BP's Grangemouth refinery. That refinery is located in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty), but it employs more people from my constituency, in places such as Falkirk, Camelon, Denny, Banknock, Bonnybridge and Larbert, than from any other constituency.
	We cannot take those jobs for granted, nor the immense contribution that the industries make to the UK Exchequer. A key role for the UK Government is to ensure that relationships with employers and trade unions are in good order, and that fiscal and other policies achieve the best returns for as long as possible to both the Exchequer and workers, while at the same time ensuring that the UK remains a profitable and attractive place for major oil and gas industries to invest in.
	I want to take this opportunity to raise three important issues that relate to the near and medium future of the oil and gas industries. The first issue is that of the European working time directive, which was adopted by the European Council of Ministers on 23 November 1993. For entirely defendable reasons, this important directive has not yet been implemented in respect of UK offshore industries. However, following the endorsement of a horizontal amending directive by the European Parliament on 18 May 2000, the working time directive will apply to UK offshore workers from 1 August this year.
	I know that the Government are engaged in discussions with employers and trades union representatives about exactly what form the application of the working time directive will take. Naturally, many of the issues are complex, especially in logistical terms, and all parties will no doubt accept an element of compromise.
	I have been impressed by a number of arguments to do with matters such as travel to work time that were raised during a recent lobby of the House by members of trade unions such as Amicus-AEEU, the TG, the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers and the GMB. I have been impressed, too, by the efforts over the past few years of the offshore industries liaison committee in respect of the working time directive. I should also say that both of my brothers have worked offshore for many years. They have given me considerable assistance in respect of my perspective on the matter. Of course, industrial employers have presented strong balancing arguments. I note that both sides have placed great emphasis on health and safety, which is very welcome.
	In the time available today, however, I wish to single out the issue of paid leave. Crucially, I understand that the original exclusion of the working time directive for the offshore sector was granted on the basis of the entirely understandable difficulties that surrounded shift patterns. It was not accepted that the nature of offshore working had any implications per se for the right of workers to paid leave. Employers will understandably balk at any legislative measures that will raise their costs, so I expect them to fight a rearguard action in this respect. In a sense, that is their job. Kvaerner employs one of my brothers on a Talisman rig and, for the first time in 25 years offshore, he now receives paid leave. That, I believe, is a response by an employer to the increasing scarcity of skilled workers offshore, and it represents good employment practice.
	The exploitation of our assets is not served best by unhelpful speculation about the long-term future of United Kingdom-based oil and gas industries. It sometimes serves to constrain entry to employment and makes it less attractive to jobseekers. That, in turn, drives up the average age and increases the scarcity of those workers in the field. I hope that all North sea employers will take the same line as those who have already recognised the right to paid leave in contractual if not legal terms.
	In many ways it is preferable for changes to occur according to the natural equilibrium of the markets, but the working time directive has proven its worth elsewhere. It is now in order for it to be applied in this respect to the offshore sector. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will respond specifically to the issue of paid leave.

Michael Weir: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is an important health and safety element in respect of travel time to and from the rigs, and that workers offshore are concerned that that should be included in the current negotiations on the working time directive? Does he agree that travel time should be included in the total working time for those working offshore?

Eric Joyce: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. Travel time is a different concept in this context. Virtually everyone travels to work, but the travel-to-work arrangements for offshore workers are very specific and are governed by tight rules and regulations. I am sympathetic to that but, similarly, anyone who flies to and from workthe hon. Gentleman will have an understanding of thathas to comply with the rigid and strict implications that apply when travelling anywhere by air. To that extent, there are constraints on anyone who flies to work.
	This is a difficult area in which to legislate, and the best thing may be for companies to recognise their obligations. However, it is importantI think that the hon. Gentleman is hinting at thisto recognise that workers can spend a great deal of time between the heliport and their place of work. There are tight constraints on their behaviour in the heliport and in the aircraft. I understand that this is the subject of continuing negotiations.
	As the Minister knows, the international convention on civil liability for oil pollution damage, to which the UK is a signatory, was adopted in 1969. It has since been subject to a number of additional protocols and amendments, most recently in 2000. In essence, the present situation, following the 2000 amendments, is that while liability for any spill technically rests with the shipowner, in practice a strict limit is placed on that liability unless wilful negligence can be proved. That is difficult to prove, even in cases such as the Prestige recently.
	The size of the limited liability relates to the size of the vessel, but it is presently set at between #2.6 million and #52 million, although the larger figure would apply mainly to oil companies, which tend to be the operators of such large vessels.
	Independent operators insure themselves through an insurance arrangement that mutualises the risk among them. I understand that the typical cost of coverage for a #25 million liability is about #5 million. Where the amount covered by the insurer is insufficient, and that liability is insufficient, the international oil producing countries fund meets the balance of the costs up to a limit, at present, of #117 million.
	That fund is, in turn, realised by signatory Governments through a levy on the oil industry. The calculation of the levy is complex and I do not intend to go into it, but it is proportionately broken up between the oil companies according to their activity in that sphere.
	The figure will soon be raised to reflect the increasing costs of cleaning up spillage and the increased perception of risk in that area. After the Prestige spill, the EU is set to propose, in advance of the International Maritime Organisation conference in May, that the figure covered by the IOPCF should be raised to Euro1 billion, or about #660 million. Moreover, I understand that although the limited liability figure placed on operators may be increased, it will not reflect that new overall figure of Euro1 billion. There will thus be a substantial increase in the oil industry liability but no proportionate increase in the liability for the shippers.
	The major oil and gas companies accept that a substantial increase to their liability via the IOPCF is on the cards, although the extent to which they agree as to the necessity for that increase or its size is a moot point. In some cases, as operators themselves, they have a foot in both camps. That is why it is important that their point of view is heard on whether the possible failure to raise shippers' limited liability to reflect the new Euro1 billion figure will have the effect of ensuring that best practice for safety, health and the environment is maintained.
	Oil companies use independent shippers for most of their transport. It is important to note that each time an oil company hires such a shipper, the operator's credentials are checked carefully. However, while oil companies can share limited inspectorial informationan inspection is carried out in each casethat is limited to a broad letter of comfort. Anything exceeding that opens the risk of breaching anti-trust legislation in force elsewhere. As a result, some bad apples will, from time to time, sneak through. Although we must be careful not to make the risk to the shipping industry prohibitive, we should also be aware that not increasing the liability to the industry in line with the likely new IOPCF liability of Euro1 billion could send the wrong messages to the small minority of operators who may be tempted to Xwing it.
	I understand that, in February, the UK will take part in a summit of European Ministers with the aim of agreeing the new IOPCF figure at Euro1 billion. At that juncture, I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to raise the question of the limited liability figure placed on shipowners. Perhaps he can deal with that point in his response to the debate.
	My third point relates to charges at St. Fergus, where gas is piped from the North sea through the Miller and Flags systems. The charges in fiscal terms and the future of wet gas in market and exploration terms are complex matters and I have neither the wish nor the expertise to reproduce that complexity in this debate. What I want to do is to flag upif the pun is not lost on industry enthusiaststhe pivotal stage that we are approaching for jobs in places throughout the UK, such as Grangemouth, and the wider future of wet gas extraction from the North sea.
	Wet gas reserves in UK waters will be exhausted relatively soonwithin years. When that happens, the focus for extraction will be on the Norwegian sector. If present circumstances continue, and if the economics do not add up, there is a risk that the Norwegians will create their own infrastructure, thus bypassing St. Fergus and possibly dashing many related jobs in the UK wet-gas sector.
	That alternative infrastructureI draw on an excellent article by Alf Young in The Herald last Fridaycould take the form of up to a #1 billion investment by the Norwegians to create a wet gas pipeline to a location that would compete aggressively with St. Fergus. It is reasonable to conclude that, if the pipeline investment were made and the pipeline were constructed, locations such as Bacton would almost certainly involve lower costs.
	It is clear, of course, that the major players in the oil and gas industry have a crucial role to play, and I imagine that the relationship between those interests and the Government in this respect have been even more productive since the Chancellor abolished oil royalties in his excellent pre-Budget report. The energy White Paper will, no doubt, focus on wet gas, among many other issues, but I wonder whether the Minister can confirm whether that will be the case. Any comments on that would be most helpful.
	I should like to conclude with what may to some seem like a statement of the obvious: we are all heavily dependent on the oil and gas industries, domestically, economically and even geopolitically. In the cut and thrust of public discourse, those facts are too often sidelined or regarded as unavoidable but undesirable necessities. Indeed, too often the wider public discourse about energy policy involves an unthinking excoriation of the oil and gas industry, and considerable adjustment is required.
	Energy is a gripping part of public policy, and issues such as the growth of renewable sources and the future of the nuclear industry merit extensive treatment. Debate about the future of energy policy is not always helpful, however, when it is characterised by interventions that apparently seek to consider the oil and gas industry as lepers, and the wider geopolitical and economic basis on which our success as a modern society is based is sometimes viewed similarly.
	Of course the reality is that, for at least another 30 or 40 years, our energy needs will be hugely reliant on our continued efficient exploration and exploitation of hydrocarbons the world over and, for as long as possible, in the United Kingdom. The Government enjoy strong relations with the oil and gas industry, with employers and trade unions. That acts very much in the interests of those whose jobs and future jobs depend on a buoyant offshore industry. In many ways, the interests of my constituents, people in Scotland and across the United Kingdom converge very closely much more often than people imagine with the interests of the oil and gas companies and wider oil and gas interests. I hope that the Minister can respond to the three points that I have made in the debate today.

Brian Wilson: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Joyce) on securing this debate and on raising some important issues, including some that are not often raised even when the House considers the oil and gas industry. I am also grateful to him for courteously giving me notice of the issues that he has covered in advance of the debate.
	I want to say something general about the Government's strategy and objectives in relation to the United Kingdom continental shelf. We are committed to doing everything in our power to maximise the economic recovery of oil and gas in the United Kingdom, and we work towards that objective in very close partnership with the industry through Pilot. In particular, we are working to attract new entrants into the North sea, where a good range of companies are active and continue to break new technological ground. Our fallow fuels initiative and Promote UKCS project have been successful recently in attracting companies from the USA and Canada that are new to the United Kingdom to invest in projects in the North sea. We intend to hold a new, 21st offshore licensing round early this year to give all those companies and, of course, the established players in the United Kingdom sector, further opportunities to invest.
	However, I agree with my hon. Friend that it is crucial to maintain the industry's status as an attractive place to work. The Government and the industry recognise that the work force in the oil and gas sector are ageing and that the industry must be attractive to younger people, and we have been addressing that at all levels. For instance, last month, I launched the XOpportunities graduate attraction scheme to raise awareness of the sector and to introduce talented youngsters to the exciting career opportunities on offer. That takes the form of a road show, which is currently touring the UK and visiting universities, particularly in Scotland, where young people who have entered the oil and gas industry are communicating with their peers about the prospects on offer. The Government are therefore committed strongly to working with the industry, through Pilot, to maximise continuing activity on the UK continental shelf, and to ensure that this country has a healthy oil and gas industry for a long time to come.
	I shall now turn to the specific issues raised by my hon. Friend about the working time directive. As he rightly says, it provides for weekly and night working-time limits, rest breaks and paid annual leave entitlements. As he mentioned, the offshore sector was excluded from the directive when it was adopted in 1993. Its provisions will be extended to cover the offshore sector and others that were previously excluded on 1 August this year through the horizontal amending directive.
	We have already issued a consultation document to implement the horizontal amending directive through amendments to the working time regulations. That consultation began on 31 October, and is due to end on 31 January. As part of the consultation process, my officials are holding a series of meetings with employer and trade union representatives from the previously excluded sectors, including the offshore sector. My hon. Friend the Minister for Employment Relations, Industry and the Regions told me just before this debate that he has had meetings with both the employers and the trade unions in the offshore oil and gas sector. We are therefore acutely aware of the need to get this right and to ensure that the people who work in the industry benefit from the extension of the working time directive to offshore oil and gas.
	As we are still within the consultation period, I am sure that my hon. Friend will recognise that I cannot comment on what might be in the final regulations. I can assure the House, however, that those workers covered by the amending regulations will receive all their entitlements, including annual leave. I should also like to pay tribute to the way in which employers and trades unions have engaged in discussion on this issue, and I assure him that his comments will be taken into account.
	My hon. Friend then turned to the question of liability for offshore oil spillages and pollution from both shipping and the offshore industry. Two separate sets of arrangements exist. On pollution from shipping, for which the Department for Transport has policy responsibility, the 1992 protocol to the civil liability convention of 1969 determines the level of liability for oil pollution carried as cargo by oil tankers. The limit of liability is determined by the gross registered tonnage of the tanker. The minimum is equivalent to #2.6 million, with a maximum of #52 million. As my hon. Friend rightly said, when that limit proves insufficient, an international oil pollution compensation fund provides additional compensation up to an overall limit, which is currently equivalent to #117 million. That compensation fund receives its revenues through levies on major oil receivers in each of the contracting states to the convention and the fund.
	I am pleased to let the House know that, following an initiative by the UK at the International Maritime Organisation in 2000, following the Erika oil spill off the French coast, the international oil pollution compensation fund regime limit will be increased with effect from 1 November this year to the equivalent of #176 million. That will also raise the shipowner's liability by 50 per cent. to a minimum of #3.9 million for a small tanker and a maximum of #78 million for a large tanker. We believe that that strikes a fair balance between the interests of potential claimants who suffer losses arising from oil pollution and the respective liabilities of shipowners, oil companies and other receivers.
	My hon. Friend is absolutely right when he talks about the supplementary approach being taken through the European Commission. As a response to the Erika incident, the Commission made a proposal for an EU compensation fund to supplement the international regime. This envisaged a limit of Euro100 billion, and it is due to be adopted by the International Maritime Organisation in May this year. The fund will be open to all contracting states to the civil liability convention international oil compensation fund regime. The limit will be determined at the IMO's diplomatic conference in May but, following the recent Prestige oil spill in Spain, EU Ministers at the Transport Council recently agreed to seek a limit of up to Euro1 billion, which is approximately #660 million. The Euro1 billion compensation will be in addition to the #176 million that I mentioned earlier.
	I assure my hon. Friend that the United Kingdom is playing a prominent role in the EU and internationally to promote implementation of the proposed supplementary fund, as well as other international conventions dealing with maritime liability that arise from polluting and hazardous cargoes and pollution from ships' bunker fuel oils.
	To put the figures in perspective, it is worth reflecting that, at the time of the Braer and the Sea Empress oil spills in January 1993 and February 1996, the overall limit available from the regime that existed at the time was approximately #51 million. All eligible claims were eventually met under that regime. The limit was subsequently raised to the current limitthe equivalent to #117 millionin June 1996. It is clear that the sums that are being talked about now as a compensation fund in the event of oil spills are and will be substantially greater than they have been in the past.
	As I have said, there are two sets of arrangements. The other is for offshore oil installations and that reflects the different situation for structures in a fixed location, often many miles from land. Under the terms of their licence, every operator of an installation on the UK continental shelf must be party to the offshore pollution liability scheme. As a member, companies must demonstrate adequate financial abilityinsurance cover, for exampleto meet claims for pollution damage and remedial measures.
	Companies must agree to accept strict liability for claims up to $120 million per incident, although payments beyond that are not ruled out. A recent study, part funded by my Department, confirmed that, in the vast majority of scenarios, the potential costs of damage and remedial action for pollution from an offshore installation would be considerably less than $120 million. A further provision of the scheme is that, if an operator should fail to meet claims for pollution, the other members of the scheme are obliged to step in to cover the default.
	I hope that I have satisfied my hon. Friend that an active approach is being taken by the Government and internationally to ensure that the money is in place to cover all eventualities when spills and incidents occur. Of course, the most effective way of dealing with them is prevention rather than paying compensation in circumstances that are always damaging to the environment.
	My hon. Friend raised an important point about entry capacity charges at St. Fergus. He sees a reduction in those charges as critical in ensuring a future for St Fergus, so it is perhaps important to go over the history. The entry regime at St Fergusthat is, the arrangements governing the access by gas from offshore to Transco's national transmission system for gashas been a live issue for a number of years. More than four years ago, in the autumn of 1998, entry capacity constraints arose as a result of a work overrun in de-bottlenecking entry capacity at St Fergus at the same time as a new oil-cum-gas field, the Britannia, was coming on stream. In the circumstances of the time, Transco addressed the problem of excess demand by Xscaling back. That was a short-term administrative solution that could not last into the longer term.
	Ofgas was already working on what became known as the new gas trading arrangements to introduce a computer-based on-the-day commodity market in gas together with entry capacity auctions. Those reforms were introduced a year later, in October 1999. The new entry capacity auctions went some way towards replacing the old administrative arrangements for allocating entry capacity with a market-related solution, but they were only designed to allocate existing capacity. Given the excess demand for entry capacity at St. Fergus, the options led to high prices at St. Fergus.
	The next step was to develop an investment regime to incentivise the construction of additional entry capacity when that is an appropriate response to market conditions. That has been a focus of Ofgem's work over the past few years. An innovative investment incentive regime is part of Transco's price control covering the period 200207. In parallel with the new investment regime, Transco is in the process of introducing long-term entry capacity auctions. Until now, Transco's auctions for entry capacity into the national transmission system have looked no further than six months ahead, but from next weekWednesday 15 January to be preciseTransco will, for the first time, hold long-term entry capacity auctions. Those will cover not six months, but 15 years, which is the whole period until 2017.
	The auction arrangements are complex. There are, however, three key points to which I should like to draw my hon. Friend's attention. First, for the first time the auctions cover possible new, as well as existing, entry capacity. Secondly, the auctions have an important link with Transco's new investment incentive regime, because the prices bid in the auctions, and the prices paid in the secondary markets following the auctions, will be taken into account by Transco when deciding whether to invest in new physical infrastructure. Thirdly, the auctions should help to put downward pressure on future entry capacity prices at St. Fergus and elsewhere because new entry capacity will have reserve prices set by Transco on what is essentially a cost-related basis.
	I am sure my hon. Friend will understand that I am not in a position to forecast prices for entry capacity at St. Fergus or, indeed, anywhere else. What I can say is that for the first time, Ofgem and Transco have put in place arrangements that are designed to make a link between the market demand for entry capacity, the price of that capacity and the cost of increasing entry capacity. That should help the market to work more effectively so that it can signal where it needs additional entry capacity and for what it is willing to pay. It should also help it to respond to the opportunities to flow more gas where weak demand may be leading to low entry capacity prices.

Michael Weir: I am interested in what the Minister says. Does he believe that the new arrangements will bring the cost of landing at St. Fergus nearer to that at other terminals? The worry is that landing at St. Fergus is much more costly than, say, at Bacton.

Brian Wilson: The arrangements will certainly help to achieve that end. Whether they are part of the solution or the solution itself remains to be seen. They do represent a significant advance and innovation, however, and we need to see how they work out. I am aware of the importance of the issues to the future of not only St. Fergus, but the oil that flows from it. Discussions between my Department and its Norwegian counterpart are under way about the possibilities for a new framework treaty to facilitate continued supplies of hydrocarbons both as a primary fuel and as a source of feedstock for the UK chemical industry. I know that the issues are also important for Grangemouth, Mossmorran and other downstream activities within the chemicals industry. In the context of the treaty, it will be important to get the infrastructure right to facilitate the flow of hydrocarbons across the median line. Discussions have already taken place in Pilot on how, in doing that, we balance the need to maximize the use of existing infrastructure and the need to leave open the option for new pipelines to enhance capacity. That is a difficult equation and an important one to get right.
	There are under consideration a number of potential projects to bring additional supplies of gas to the UK. There are different views on the necessity and desirability of those projects, but I welcome that interest in the UK market. It will be important for the UK to have as many import options as possible as we move towards becoming a net annual importer of gas later in the decade. It is for the market to determine which of the various projects under consideration will ultimately go ahead. The Government's role is to set the right political and regulatory framework to ensure that commercially driven projects are not impeded.
	My hon. Friend has raised three diverse and significant issues, and I have had a little more time to respond to them than I would normally have had. The third issue in particular has immense implications for the future of not only the oil and gas industries, but the chemical industries in Scotland and the UK as a whole. I should be pleased to respond to any point that I have not covered in correspondence with my hon. Friend and other hon. Members.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes to Five o'clock.